What qualifies as "light" ice cream?

[ReneeV]

Hi All,

I'm asking this question because many "light" ice cream recipes seem to have nearly as many calories as regular ice cream, just less fat.
I've long thought that about the EW "premium" ice cream recipe using marshmallow creme. While admittedly delicious and low in fat, it has a substantial amount of calories. More calories, in fact, than many regular ice cream recipes.

I'm making vanilla ice cream tomorrow and I'm using a recipe from the book "Ice Cream: The Whole Scoop". I love this book! It's comprehensive in it's treatment of the subject from describing the difference between the various frozen desserts, to how to harden, temper and store ice cream. There are chapters on ice cream cakes, treats, cones and cups, all using homemade ice cream. There is quite a bit of history mixed in along with some great old time recipes. There are literally hundreds of recipes in this book. It's not kitchy or chic. While it does contain plenty of ice cream recipes aimed at contemporary taste buds, it doesn't contain Ben and Jerry-like recipes. There is a comprehensive chapter on Add-Ins, which really expands the horizon of ice cream inspiration!

Back to the recipe: This recipe does not claim to be light or low fat or anything but a basic, delicious vanilla custard using whole milk, an egg, some sugar and vanilla. However, when you crunch the numbers, it's lighter than many "light" recipes.
Which leads me back to my original question. What makes an ice cream light? Is it merely fat contant? Even though we are now realizing that fat isn't the entire problem? Shouldn't a light recipe also be concerned with the amount calories it contains? Obviously, this is a mute point for those of you who don't care and make ice cream as an occasional treat or don't need to be concerned about such things.

My grandmother used to make a peach ice cream in which the base was equal parts whole milk and half and half. To that she would add macerated peaches, vanilla and sugar. When I was a teen, I use to think that this ice cream was way too fattening and I'd feel guilty for eating it. (That's a whole other subject!) I've come to find out that this ice cream had only about 130 cals per 1/2 cup. Admittedly, it had 10 grams of fat. But I don't have a cholesterol problem and I didn't eat it regularly enough to be concerned about the saturated fat issue.

I don't mean to stir up controversy and sorry to be so long winded, but I sometimes feel the wool is being pulled over our eyes when it comes to "light". Some regular ol' recipes are just as light, if not lighter, than these low-fat light pretenders.

What's your opinion?

Renée

[CompassRose]

This is the crux of the problem with the low-fat bandwagon. Everyone got so gung-ho about low-fat that they didn't consider that calories DO still count.

If you want some light amusement (er, so to speak :p), wander down a cookie aisle some day, and compare, f'rinstance, Light Oreos with Regular. They're just about the same per serving. Or sometimes they'll be lower -- then you look at the weight, and realise the numbers have been jigged that way.

That's WHY now the buzz is "low-fat diets don't work, and Americans are getting fatter." D'uh. The original low-fat diet research was based mostly on Asian traditional diets. Which include grains, beans, lots of vegetables and fruits, and NO fat-free cookies or ice creams or concentrated sugars. (Or, for that matter, fake fats that cause "anal leakage.")

There is no way for most people to be as trim as they'd like and still, miraculously, eat as much junk as they'd like. It IS, and must be, a lifestyle change. That's what people don't seem to want to accept. Better for you and healthy just isn't worth it without - sob - all the processed "food" you can chow down.

Heh. My rant.

[tbb113]

Many low-fat recipes add sugar so they taste better. But if its lable "low-fat" I think it just needs to be less than 30% fat per serving. Something can be low-fat and still high calorie...so unless it is described as low-fat and low-calorie, you need to pay attention to the nutrition label.

[lindrusso]

You bring up some very good points, Renee. You are right - you have to watch the overall calorie count, no matter how "light" a food is. Just because something is low-fat, does not mean it is low calorie. Nutritionists have long said that Americans have continued to get fat even after going low-fat because many saw going low-fat as a license to eat however much they wanted (box after box of Snackwell cookies, for example).

However, there is still a large faction out there that is not convinced that going full-fat is the answer either. There is still a lot of literature out there that points to saturated fats being bad for your cardiac health. I think you are right - if you only eat it once in a while, there is probably little need to worry. For those of us who want to have something around as a regular treat, however, it's hard to imagine consuming so much saturated fat on a regular basis. And many of us do have histories of heart problems in our families, making us even more wary of saturated fat.

At this point, I still feel that low-fat is the way to go (for me), but I am seeing more and more validity to lowering carbs and to not cutting back fat drastically (I do feel more satiated with a bit more fat and protein). But I don't think I am convinced that all fats are equal - I think it is probably better to stick to the good fats like olive oil, avocadoes, etc, and to avoid the saturated fats as much as possible.

Unfortunately, there is no "good" fat in ice cream, so I will enjoy the full fat stuff once in a while (that's "real" ice cream IMO) and keep the lower-fat stuff around for more regular indulgences.

And ditto to what CompassRose said. It is definitely a lifestyle change and no matter how light or low-fat, junk food is still junk food.

Alysha :)