If you are going there, you may as well evaluate the entire store. Most processed foods are not healthy, and most grocery stores are stocked with processed foods. It is not like the frozen dinner/pizza aisle has many good choices either. The produce sections are good, though.

The design of grocery stores has actually evolved in such a way as to make it pretty easy for you to shop healthy, though not on purpose. (At least, it did in the US, I don't know if other countries follow the same pattern.)

The standard supermarket layout consists a "perimeter" running around the sides and back of the store, with a "center store" made up of aisles in the middle. Center store is where the shelf-stable, processed and frozen foods go, while fresh/perishable foods -- produce, dairy, meats, seafood, bakery, etc. -- are placed along the perimeter. (More on this here: http://limn.it/all-lost-in-the-supermarket/)

So if you stick to shopping the perimeter and only duck into center store when you absolutely need to, it's not hard to come away with a cart that's mostly fresh foods. It's when your shopping consists mostly of running up and down the aisles of the center store that you get in trouble.

These colorful sugar-cereals have completely overtaken the cereal market in Estonia. In fact, my neighbourhood supermarkets no longer sell any major brand whole grain cereal at all. They used to, but the number of options kept decreasing, until it reached zero a few years ago. Now I either have to buy generic components and mix the cereal myself, or eat something else.

I'm not convinced that cereal as a product is bad. Sure things like Lucky Charms are clearly terrible for kids, but Cheerios or Honey Bunches of Oats? They are the best combination of cheap, easy, and quick that someone can get for breakfast. My biggest worry with an anti-cereal movement would be that people would just start skipping breakfast (even more than they do), leading them to consume MORE calories at lunch and dinner to make up for it.

Lucky Charms has 110 calories per 3/4ths a cup. Honey Nut Cheerios has 110 calories per 3/4ths a cup.

They both have 22g of carbs of which Lucky Charms has 10g of sugar while Cheerios has 9. Don't confuse branding with health. If your cereal doesn't taste like cardboard, it's probably bad for you.

Try regular Cheerios: http://www.caloriecount.com/calories-general-mills-cheerios-...

110 calories in 1 cup serving. 1.2 grams of sugar, 3 grams of fiber.

I started eating these plain in the morning when I got to the office and after less than 10 months of eating it, my cholesterol dropped another 5 points. I already had healthy levels, and this dropped it even more.

Yeah. Honey Nut Cheerios != Cheerios.

There some much healthier options in there if you know where to look, but unfortunately its not easy to identify them, and even things like granola which are colloquially thought to be healthy are often jam packed with sugar.

I saw something called "Uncle Sam Original Wheat Berry Flakes" last weekend, and it is surprisingly healthy (http://www.unclesamcereal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Unc...). Only 4 ingredients, too.

Exactly. They put extra sugar/sweeteners in absolutely everything these days. You have to look at the ingredients and calories on anything you buy.

Even super healthy-eeming things like granola or dried fruit usually have sugar added. Yogurt is still promoted as a healthy snack, but most of them have as much added sugar as a candy bar.

> Yogurt is still promoted as a healthy snack, but most of them have as much added sugar as a candy bar.

At least plain yogurt is still made only from milk, milk solids and yogurt cultures.

...unless that "nonfat milk solids" means sugar?

Maybe the solution is to require sorting on the shelves by sugar content. This way not only healthier options will be easier to find but you would need to take a few additional steps to get your high sugar option.

Those additional steps to get to the end of the shelf may even turn into a walk of shame kind of thing with enough cultural pressure.

Thats the right direction. But why put the burden onto supermarkets? Producers of food should be required to visually indicate the proportional sugar content on the packaging. Imagine a box of cereals, the bottom third of which has to be white in order to indicate that 1/3 of its contents is indeed sugar. No more searching & parsing fine print with unintuitive text.

> even things like granola which are colloquially thought to be healthy are often jam packed with sugar.

Also instant oats with added flavor (brown sugar and maple, cinnamon, banana bread, what have you) can contain a lot of added sugar, compared to plain oats version.

Or if they just stopped advertising it. In the UK the government tried to ban food advertising to children but there was massive lobbying from Kellogg's and they dropped it.

Regarding Kellogg's , they also started the whole "Breakfast is healthy and most important meal in the morning" BS. Since I've started intermittent fasting 16/8 (from 20.00 to 12.00) I've been loosing fat easily.

I'm interested in the 20h to 12noon fast. Is that literally nill by mouth for that period or do you have a drink of water or unsweetened tea when getting up?

I'd go for porridge at lunch on a regime like that. A younger colleague at work referred to porridge as 'warm icecream' the other day so there is hope I think.

Here's the best writeup on the topic I've found : http://antranik.org/intermittent-fasting/

The guy also makes great videos about bodyweight training, which I also implemented beside weights.

I usually eat dinner before 20.00, but after that nothing. Water refreshes me in the morning (I stopped with coffee 2,5 years ago and am clean since), although as written in the article above coffee ain't that big deal either.

The thing is that you get used to the "empty" feeling to the point you kinda prefer it, since you're way more focused. I also stopped drinking everything else then water, because it's the only thing that actually clenches the thirst and also supresses the "hunger" feeling (I've put hunger in quotes because actual hunger is being a day or more without food, not couple hours that many modern humans think). A great after effect is also much greater sensitivity to sugar, when you occasionally drink something sweetened like a soda or juice. You won't believe how sweet the drinks are today, when you're drinking just water for a month. This is also why I believe people keep consuming sugary products and are surprised by the amount of it inside - when your taste adapts to sugar all the time, you have no idea and as a result you might even start eating more sugary things to even taste it's sweet.

An awesome benefit is also that you're way way less obsessed with food, because you don't constantly surround your thoughts about it (like for 5-6 meals per day). Just eat 2-3 meals and that's it. Sometimes I even eat at 14.00 if I'm busy or something, not really an issue. The only caveat is to not to pig out in the afternoon. Actually after a while when you're used to being empty more, you won't even want to eat large amounts of food, specially if you're drinking water through the day.

I'm not saying it's the best thing since sliced bread, so as with everything, give it a full go for a month and check the results.

Interesting, thanks. I have never had sugary drinks, but I do tend to eat a lot of (whole) fruit which is still sugar.

I didn't know someone does this on purpose. I just have a low appetite in the late evening and the morning, so I've been doing this for a few years now.

I heard that you you want to lose fat, you need to speed up your metabolism which means eat more often. I wonder how this works with this kind of diet.

It's not true; you can activate your metabolism just as well by walking in a circle once an hour.

Some people, particularly women, enter starvation mode quickly and don't lose fat better through fasting, but usually it doesn't hurt.

> I heard that you you want to lose fat, you need to speed up your metabolism which means eat more often.

That's nonsense and debunked in the link I pasted below.

As weird as it is, things are improving in the U.S.

I met an ad exec who ran the Joe Camel campaign. People will do what works. The free market will end up with really effective but unwanted solutions. Marketing to kids is one of those places where simple regulation makes a lot of sense.

It's crazy how easy it is to eat a healthier diet by simply avoiding the cereal/chips/soda isles. Sugar (especially corn syrup), and processed carbs literally make up these two massive aisle's in every store. Combine that with a moderate amount of activity throughout the week and you'll be in pretty decent shape.

Case in point: I live in a walking city (NYC), avoid the junk described above, yet I eat/drink out often and at 31 years old I'm in above average shape without any serious exercise (other than walking up lots of stairs, and around the city, daily). Of course I could do more, but the point is cutting out some simple items from your diet can go a very long way.

Even Kelloggs Corn Flakes are packed with sugar. Why?

People are more likely to re-purchase a product if they like how it tastes. Sweeter = tastier.

Some will make comparisons based on labels and change, but most will re-purchase and not consider alternatives.

Because they're made out of corn.

If man made it, don't eat it.

Would that include cabbage, brussels sprouts, kale, broccoli and cauliflower? Those are all man made.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/8/6/5974989/kale-cauliflower-...

I have a large bowl of cereal every morning. Yes, I eat those kids' sugary cereals. My BMI is below 20.

Be careful of assigning too much importance on BMI or weight in general. Eating a lot of sugar increases the risk for diabetes even if you're skinny.

There is no conclusive proof that eating too much sugar causes diabetes.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/24/five-diabetes-myths...

damage to the pancreas and related hormonal systems is cumulative, often not apparent until its too late. people can be pre-diabetic and not obese. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-26/more-than-...

Well, you may have an increase (no definitive causation) although the chances of developing pancreatic cancer if so is still very unlikely. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65E5H420100615

I was a cereal addict as a kid. Killed a couple boxes of the stuff a week. And I was super skinny, probably because we played outside to the point of exhaustion every single day.

Yeah, was the same like like you as a kid. Was super skinny. Even as an adult, I'm not nearly as active but I do count my calories. IMO, banning things like cereal is not the answer when the more effective approach is to teach kids how to burn their calories and/or limit their calorie intake per day.

probably due to metabolism more so than activity

What am I missing here - exercise increases metabolism, at least temporarily, does it not?

Kids' bodies work differently than adults'. Most of their caloric intake goes to the vastly more demanding process of growing than it does to fueling activity. It's like how a mother gains a huge appetite during pregnancy that would have made her fat otherwise.

The problem is that habits formed as kids die hard. You keep eating the same way as you did when you were 12, but have nowhere to put it all, except your belly / thighs / butt. Before you know it you're 27 and huge.