Sugarless Kellogs with whole milk are super healthy and also very tasty. Unfortunatelt people end up eating junk such as frosty flakes with some milk substitute.

Sugarless Kelloggs don’t exist. Bare raw Corn Flakes are 8.4g of sugar per 100g. (Still better than “nature yoghurt” with 11g per 100g, knowing that a yoghurt is 125g).

If you add milk, that's an extra 6g per 100ml.

For comparison, 100g of apples has an average of 10.4g of sugar: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/apples?por..., and something like fruit loops is 30g of sugar per 100g (https://smartlabel.kelloggs.com/en_US/Product/Index/00038000...)

I think it's good enough if it's less sugary than apples.

I see the typical American quest to eradicate (fats, then cholesterol, and now sugar) annoying.

1: different types of sugar 2: Apple would usually have much more raw fiber content = feel fuller for longer 3: because of first 2, it can be satisfying to eat a decent sized Apple for breakfast, with some water or coffee, but you'd have to otherwise have a whole bowl of cereal

Sugars are bad in that we only need so much of them and our brains are hardwired to be addicted to them/want more. Sugars from fruits are absorbed much more slowly than refined sugar.

Fats, sugars etc aren't inherently bad, there are healthy fats. But the main learning today is really that it's more about caloric intake (energy in, energy out) and it's easier to manage when fats/sugars & other carbs are delivered with foods that digest slowly/have a low GI - making us feel full for longer; it's better that our blood sugar experiences a constant slow release than spikes.

The problem is when we refine sugars & fats down and sprinkle them over _everything_ because "it tastes good". I can't believe American bread often contains a buttload of sugar. It's bread, not brioche!

Just use these cereal that say "Contents: corn" with no sugar. I believe that some Kellog's qualified, but that could be some time ago. Bingo: They will have some sugars, but these are natural corn sugars which would absorbed slowly.

Milk also contains slow-ish sugars, not refined sugar.

The problem here is Kelloggs is a brand from the era in which western nutritional diseases exploded and it's products reflect that. Corn flakes without added sugar are made by others and are like 3% carbs.

> Corn flakes without added sugar are made by others and are like 3% carbs.

No. They might be 3% sugars, but near entirety of corn flake is carbohydrates

Ah yes, 88% carbs, 0.8% sugars (simple carbs).

All of that insoluble (as opposed to soluble) fiber is not the best, either.

Cereals are great - I eat rolled oats with milk or yoghurt and it takes ages to digest so i don't have to eat anything until lunch. Keloggs sweetened nonsense (seriously 40% sugar?) of course doesn't make sense

Yeah well put! The concept of having grains with dairy is perfectly sound. But everybody knows "froot loops" is just candy.

> Arguably, without advertising which makes you believe, incorrectly, that it is good for you, breakfast cereal _makes no sense

Can you explain that?

I think what he means to say is that without the influence of advertising that may falsely promote its health benefits, breakfast cereal can seem less meaningful.

I mean as long as you avoid the ones that have a lot of sugar added, eating cereal for breakfast isn't much different from eating pasta for dinner. It's a couple hundred calories worth of carbs which is not so bad in itself.

Where people get into trouble is their overall calorie intake and the breakdown of their macros, it's not uncommon for people to get too many calories from fats or carbs. If you're sedentary you don't really need a lot of calories period. But if you're keeping an eye on all those things a bowl of oatmeal in the morning isn't going to kill you.

Edit: Here's a list of cereals and their nutritional info: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga... Note that at the recommended serving size, obviously some are more healthy than others, but frankly none of them are really going to kill you. A serving of cereal is only about 100-250 calories. The problem arises when you eat multiple servings in one sitting.

“Breakfast cereal” specifically refers to the sweetened crap. Nobody was advertising plain oatmeal during cartoon breaks

Actually, it doesn't. Cereals can be sweetened or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_cereal

> Edit: Here's a list of cereals and their nutritional info: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga... Note that at the recommended serving size, obviously some are more healthy than others, but frankly none of them are really going to kill you. A serving of cereal is only about 100-250 calories. The problem arises when you eat multiple servings in one sitting.

As in... eating normal sized breakfast ? Ain't nobody bothering to get the milk out of the fridge for 250 calories breakfast.

It looks like marketing move to look better tbh

2 eggs, 1 serving of cereal with milk, some fruit, black coffee. Boom, a balanced breakfast that includes cereal. You're welcome.

Now obviously telling someone to eat sugary cereal isn't good health advice. But even if you opted for one of the less healthy cereals in my link - frosted cornflakes - one serving only has 11g sugar, 13% of your daily allowance. Not really going to kill you.

Sit down and eat three servings of frosted flakes in one go and yeah you'll slowly kill yourself.

If you're going through the trouble of making eggs you aren't going to bother with cereal - cereal is a convenience food.

There are so many weird takes in this discussion. Obviously what you have said here is untrue, maybe it is your preference but of course it is not universal. Many people make eggs for breakfast and eat them with a single serving of cereal. I'm one of them.

There's very little difficulty in making eggs, two of them in a frying pan, wait, flip, done...

The other weird take was the people who kept saying "cereal" only refers to cereals that are high in sugar. The statement makes zero sense on its face, cereals with sugar are grammatically a subset of cereals...

Cereal in fact refers to a type of grass! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereal But the topic here (literally in the headline) is breakfast cereals, some of those have added sugar, some of which don't.

What a weird article, I kept scrolling down looking for the ... breakfast cereal? The only thing they have on there that is what people are actually talking about is frosted flakes. They don't even have plain Cheerios on this list... Am I missing something?

It's a UK website. Cheerios are relatively new here, and my impression is that they aren't very popular. In particular, i suspect they haven't caught on with the demographic of people who write articles for the BHF website.

I'm not sure "relatively new" is accurate, though of course it depends on the timescale. They seemed as widespread as other common sugary cereals (Coco Pops, Frosties, Ricicles et al) during the 90s. However, if we're looking back further, it could well be the case that they were comparatively late arrivals.

Frosted Flakes is representative of the general category that you are calling "breakfast cereal." The items on the list are the different kinds of cereal categories.

I don't think so... The article seemed to be specifically talking about "corn flakes with frosting", which is not comparable to, like, whatever cocoa puffs is.

The category is "high sugar". Not the shape or grain used in the cereal.

I mean, the category is labeled "Sugar-frosted cornflakes" in the article. I see that it compares them to "other sweetened cereals like chocolate rice cereals, or honey-nut coated cereals", but it's clearly still talking specifically about sugar-frosted cornflakes in that section. It also puts this higher in the list than granola with dried fruit, and I promise you that granola is healther than the large majority of mainstream mass-market sweetened cereals in the US. (I do get that it's a UK article, and perhaps "suger-frosted cornflakes" and "other sweetened cereals like chocolate rice cereals, or honey-nut coated cereals" are the primary sweetened cereals there, but that's not how it is in the US.)

I dunno, I really don't want to be pedantic, I just think you're saying "you shouldn't read what the words in the article say, you should read the words I say it means to say", and that's not how I read...

> I mean, the category is labeled "Sugar-frosted cornflakes" in the article. It also puts this higher in the list than granola with dried fruit, and I promise you that granola is healther than the large majority of mainstream mass-market sweetened cereals in the US. (I do get that it's a UK article, and perhaps "suger-frosted cornflakes" and "other sweetened cereals like chocolate rice cereals, or honey-nut coated cereals" are the primary sweetened cereals there, but that's not how it is in the US.)

Yes, these are the primary sweetened cereals in the UK, but I don't think they're any healthier than the US versions. Frosties seem to be nutritionally equivalent to Lucky Charms just without the off-putting artificial colours.

I think it's simply that the granola is very dense, they list a bowl as 60g vs 30g for the sweetened cereal. I tend to just sprinkle a bit on top of a bowl of yoghurt and fresh fruit.

There are far worse cereals than what we call frosted flakes, is what I found confusing. It is one of the healthier ones! A lot of the cereal in a US cereal aisle is essentially candy. I guess I wouldn't have been confused if the article had a section at a bottom for "all the rest of the super sweet cereals".

> I mean as long as you avoid the ones that have a lot of sugar added,

This is virtually all of them, though. I think it’s generally not as bad as it used to be, but it’s still refined sugar for breakfast and really not ideal.

In the list of ten breakfast cereals I posted, four of the first five have essentially zero sugar.

Consumer habits notwithstanding there are many low/no sugar breakfast cereals available at any supermarket, they are usually not the ones targeting kids with cartoon characters and zany names on the box.

As a parent, I think it makes perfect sense. Most kids like grains (the lunch and dinner version of cereal is pasta) and it's very easy to get cereal onto the table while you're doing ten other things to get the kids out the door. Even oatmeal is not quite as easy.

Whether it's worth the nutritional trade off, I dunno. But we also make eggs a lot, which requires more time and attention, and usually I end up eating them cold myself when I get back after dropping everyone off.