I used to like having cereals for the breakfast, but now, everytime I plan to buy some in the supermarket, I'm cooled down because of how unhealthy they are.
In France, there is something called the "nutriscore". It is a score between A and F that has to be prominently displayed on the packaging of products. It indicates how this product compares with others in the same kind of category on a healthy related scale.
Industrial breakfast cereals are very bad. Easily D or E.
I always assumed this was mostly down to truth-in-advertising rules; I remember when I was a kid in the late 80s/early 90s breakfast cereal ads making all sorts of extravagant, and untrue, health claims which would not be tolerated today. This is referenced in the article; where permitted, making misleading health claims is still an industry mainstay.
Arguably, without advertising which makes you believe, incorrectly, that it is good for you, breakfast cereal _makes no sense_; it’s not surprising that late millennials and Gen Z, who were largely not exposed to this advertising, have foresaken it.
For an interesting small-scale model see Ribena in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribena); allegedly healthy high-sugar drink, used to be _everywhere_, until they stopped being able to use misleading ads to sell it.
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.
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
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.
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.
There are so many great first-meal options! I still like oatmeal, but sometimes it's sprouted grains and legumes with whatever veg from the local farm that no one else is going to eat, and beets. I make most of the family meals and because I'm recovering from GERD also I make my own different lower-impact meals (without garlic, onions, tomatoes, citrus, coffee, chocolate, or alcohol), usually in the microwave on lower power for longer (cubed beets cook well this way: 8-10min at 30% power in a 1100W microwave), otherwise too much water leaves as steam. I'll add nutritional yeast and homemade kimchi for taste, or the yeast and some soy sauce in the evening (the last batch of kimchi has some garlic in it, and I'll risk eating small amounts earlier in the day).
Hydration: I've noticed that I'm not so thirsty anymore, eating meals with so much vegetable matter, possibly because there's a lot of water in amongst the fiber and it gets freed up during digestion?
I do not understand "breakfast" at all. When I wake up usually the last thing I want to do is start eating, but if I were hungry I'd want something salty and savory and high in protein, steak or a roast, fish, pork ribs, something like this.
The amount of sugar in basically all breakfast foods is just insane, then people actually pour even more sugar on top. I don't understand how people can eat this type of food to begin with, but especially first thing in the morning.
Even healthy cereal is incredibly energy dense, we have no need for it unless you're active enough (not so many wfh developers). That aside so many cereals (esp in America) are just sugar bombs.
Children could do with a solid energy dense breakfast, less sugar more plain oats & other cereals. Adults, it depends. But nobody needs coco puffs, except only as a treat.
I take great joy in watching Millennials reject the absurdity that we inherited, like buying diamonds, pretending cable news is news and carb loading every single morning before sitting most of the day.
Are standard cheerios really that unhealthy? They’re easy - 3 cups (two servings) with some almond milk is only 315 calories and they’re packed with fortified vitamins. Three cups is also a lot.
It’s a pretty convenient food.
Sure the super sugary ones aren’t great for you, but generally I like cereals and they’re better than a lot of other common breakfast options (pastries).
In the grocery story the other day, I noticed Kit Kat cereal on the shelf. Who would buy that and consider it an even remotely nutritious meal, I don’t know.
I’m very active and I still avoid them. It takes barely more effort to make some scrambled eggs and toast/eggos for the same calories as a bowl of sugary grain and tastes better too.
It's just objectively not good food with a glycaemic index approaching soda, very short satiety, and limited nutrition value. It's a mix of things we blame for the obesity epidemic, all in one convenient meal.
The "breakfast of champions" slogan, given how popular it became, sounds like it would make for an interesting case study where people agreed to marketing, even if their individual experiences must have been that the food isn't really as filling as other options. Maybe it's a breakfast of sports champions who eat it as pre-workout, but surely it's not a breakfast that makes champions.
It could be good food. You can make a profit whilst serving the public good, that’s something corporations just can’t get into their heads.
Nestlé in Europe has made a few versions with more whole grains and less sugar, with no detectable change in taste. For a while, I was eating rice-based low-sugar breakfast cereal with added vitamins, simply because the alternative was a pastry and coffee (very busy work weeks). I despise Nestlé, but, hey, at least here’s a healthier version of our product — not healthy, healthier.
The race to the bottom in terms of sugar and additives might also be a factor as to why breakfast cereal is in decline. Make better products and we’ll buy them.
To make matters more absurd, we took this product, dressed it in bright colors, marketed it towards children, and without a hint of irony, told their parents it’s the most important meal of the day?
I’m a lazy guy that is part of one of those elite gyms (kind of by accident, but it is what it is). As a result I get to see what actual elite athletes eat by virtue of being around that and I can assure you that these elite sports champions are not eating any form of cereal at all as part of their daily regimen.
> The "breakfast of champions" slogan, given how popular it became, sounds like it would make for an interesting case study where people agreed to marketing (...)
I thought it was pretty clear that the "breakfast if champions" slogan was simply a reference to how they paid athletes, specially olympian medalists, to endorse their product.
It’s interesting that there is an uptick in private label brands.
The only options I can find that are not loaded with glyphosate, sugar or salt, and that also still have fiber in them are private label or from companies not included on the graph.
Post, General Mills, and Kellogs don’t sell organic options with their own branding, so all their stuff has glyphosate applied at harvest (search for: round up drying agent)
Kellogs owns Kashi which (I think is still organic), and the local stores don’t carry Kashi stuff that meets my requirements any more.
The manufacturers with reasonable offerings that I know of are: Amazon (365 whole foods market brand), nature’s path (privately held) food for life (38 employees; independent), and probably trader joes.
They all would either be excluded from the analysis in the article or put under “private label” which is increasing slightly over time.
However, their combined marketing budget is some tiny fraction of the companies pumping out unhealthy garbage.
Maybe if finding non-terrible cereal wasn’t a complicated project, then sales would start ticking back up.
Just go straight to the source and eat oatmeal. It’s nutritious, delicious (give it some time), and affordable. Cut out the corporate middle men from your consumption of abundant and cheap whole grains!
Here's a trick that I've done in the past: buy a Presto popcorn popper. You can then buy organic grains in bulk--wheat, barley, rye, even oat groats--and pop/parch them in the popper. You get the nutty flavor and bioavailability of breakfast cereal, but no secret additives and a guaranteed clean breakfast. If you prefer hot cereal, you can then mill (or grind) the roasted grains to make instant porridge--just add boiling water and stir. (You can also do the same with lentils and split peas, mix in dried seasonings, and have instant soup mix). All of the convenience, none of the packaging, none of the poison.
I think it's mainly because American's (really everyone) is getting savvier about health. 20 years ago, Kellogs could have convinced the public that their cereal were actually healthy through TV ads and such. But now with the internet it's impossible to convince anyone because the facts about sugar are out there and people are changing their behaviors.
If I had to make a bet I'd say in the next decade of so, Kellogs and other cereal manufacturers will kill off most of their cereal brands, keep a few well known brands around, and make a shift to the "healthier cereals" space that's occupied by these smaller players and private labels.
I think it's a good thing it's in decline. Cereal for the most part is terrible for your health and wallet. There are far better alternatives for breakfast. Maybe people have started to realize that.
Lots of cereal is basically candy, which is why it's so darn delicious. I weaned myself off of it and now mostly skip breakfast, get a McMuffin if I want to be fancy, or grab a protein bar if I'm desperate.
I will treat myself to a bowl of Lucky Charms every once in a while, though.
A lot of the comments here seem to he America centric. In the UK there's plenty of option for low sugar nutritious cereals. Even children's cereals by law must not contain too much sugar and must contain a certain level or nutrients.
Some of my favourite cereals are shredded wheat, cheerios, rice krispies. All very simple cereals. If you're feeling fancy you can have a porridge with jam or a granola with no fruits.
The only thing to say is the milk. I know a lot of people develop lactose interances as an adult so it might be troublesome to keep having such a high lactose intake. I think some milk alternatives are much nicer nowadays and add some of their own sweetness to cereal if you like that. I personally have no issues with my low fat dairy milk every morning
"This will leave Kellogg’s top management to focus on the more attractive snacking segment, with brands such as Pringles and Cheez-It, at a company renamed Kellanova."
Disgusting but probably. Cereal is at an interesting crossroads now. For a long time they were able to dupe the American populace into thinking that processed grains pumped full of sugar were “healthy” as long as they tossed a b complex tab in there. Now the American populace has finally wised up and I cannot say I feel sorry for the cereal big wigs
Both were this; the idea that breakfast cereal is good for you was largely a marketing creation, and it’s likely that the fact that it has become more difficult to lie about that to people in ads is likely at least partially responsible for the decline.
One company thrives on high sodium intake, the other on high sugar intake...
(Well, that isn't strictly true: Pop-Tarts and Nutri-Grain bars are going to Kellanova.)
When 12ish I realized that my mental clarity was actually better throughout school when I skipped breakfast because I was too late; and initially I just thought this: it was due to sleeping longer.
But I observed the same thing later in high school when I got up on time but forgot to buy milk and hence went to school fasted.
Back then, I thought "break(ing your)fast" was somehow important for your energy levels at the start of the day (good PR!) so I was hesitant to follow really through and I guess the latent sugar cravings did the rest (but I remember not being "hangry" as others described it).
Now, after experimenting with a lot of regiments, I know that I'm far better off by "skipping breakfast". As a general rule of thumb giving your body a rest time of 12 hours and not eating 2 hours before sleeping gives your body an additional strong signal for its diurnal coordination.
That being said I knew a very athletic guy who before sleeping devoured 3000kcal (he barely ate throughout the day) and then judging by his exceptional body composition and athletic achievements could recover excellently.
Good. If my generation is responsible for ending the disgusting practice of pumping kids full of subsidized sugar and grain and trying to call it healthy I am proud of being part of the movement to end feeding kids this shit
I suspect fabric softener on that list is, like breakfast cereal, a victim of truth in advertising rules; you’re just not allowed lie about its efficacy like you use to be.
Diamonds, another product which makes no sense outside the context of marketing are presumably some other marketing failure, possibly just failure of the industry to address bad press.
> Companies like Coca-Cola and Kraft Heinz have begun designing their products so that their packages don’t have a true front or back, but rather two nearly identical labels — except for the fact that only one side has the required warning. As a result, supermarket clerks often place the products with the warning facing inward, effectively hiding it.
[+] [-] neonate|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greatgib|2 years ago|reply
In France, there is something called the "nutriscore". It is a score between A and F that has to be prominently displayed on the packaging of products. It indicates how this product compares with others in the same kind of category on a healthy related scale. Industrial breakfast cereals are very bad. Easily D or E.
[+] [-] rsynnott|2 years ago|reply
Arguably, without advertising which makes you believe, incorrectly, that it is good for you, breakfast cereal _makes no sense_; it’s not surprising that late millennials and Gen Z, who were largely not exposed to this advertising, have foresaken it.
For an interesting small-scale model see Ribena in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribena); allegedly healthy high-sugar drink, used to be _everywhere_, until they stopped being able to use misleading ads to sell it.
[+] [-] safety1st|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] yread|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanderjd|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thriftwy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dudul|2 years ago|reply
Can you explain that?
[+] [-] meristohm|2 years ago|reply
Hydration: I've noticed that I'm not so thirsty anymore, eating meals with so much vegetable matter, possibly because there's a lot of water in amongst the fiber and it gets freed up during digestion?
[+] [-] throw__away7391|2 years ago|reply
The amount of sugar in basically all breakfast foods is just insane, then people actually pour even more sugar on top. I don't understand how people can eat this type of food to begin with, but especially first thing in the morning.
[+] [-] fennecfoxy|2 years ago|reply
Even healthy cereal is incredibly energy dense, we have no need for it unless you're active enough (not so many wfh developers). That aside so many cereals (esp in America) are just sugar bombs.
Children could do with a solid energy dense breakfast, less sugar more plain oats & other cereals. Adults, it depends. But nobody needs coco puffs, except only as a treat.
[+] [-] standardUser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gonehome|2 years ago|reply
It’s a pretty convenient food.
Sure the super sugary ones aren’t great for you, but generally I like cereals and they’re better than a lot of other common breakfast options (pastries).
[+] [-] xyst|2 years ago|reply
Wish I was never exposed to that junk. Getting off that stuff was 100X harder than cigarettes.
[+] [-] tcbawo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kretinsky|2 years ago|reply
You can also add fruits and/or peanut butter if you want a bit of variety!
[+] [-] devmor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] clnq|2 years ago|reply
The "breakfast of champions" slogan, given how popular it became, sounds like it would make for an interesting case study where people agreed to marketing, even if their individual experiences must have been that the food isn't really as filling as other options. Maybe it's a breakfast of sports champions who eat it as pre-workout, but surely it's not a breakfast that makes champions.
[+] [-] xctr94|2 years ago|reply
Nestlé in Europe has made a few versions with more whole grains and less sugar, with no detectable change in taste. For a while, I was eating rice-based low-sugar breakfast cereal with added vitamins, simply because the alternative was a pastry and coffee (very busy work weeks). I despise Nestlé, but, hey, at least here’s a healthier version of our product — not healthy, healthier.
The race to the bottom in terms of sugar and additives might also be a factor as to why breakfast cereal is in decline. Make better products and we’ll buy them.
[+] [-] coffeefirst|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SOLAR_FIELDS|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rewmie|2 years ago|reply
I thought it was pretty clear that the "breakfast if champions" slogan was simply a reference to how they paid athletes, specially olympian medalists, to endorse their product.
[+] [-] fortran77|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj6S1tmSVmc
[+] [-] hedora|2 years ago|reply
The only options I can find that are not loaded with glyphosate, sugar or salt, and that also still have fiber in them are private label or from companies not included on the graph.
Post, General Mills, and Kellogs don’t sell organic options with their own branding, so all their stuff has glyphosate applied at harvest (search for: round up drying agent)
Kellogs owns Kashi which (I think is still organic), and the local stores don’t carry Kashi stuff that meets my requirements any more.
The manufacturers with reasonable offerings that I know of are: Amazon (365 whole foods market brand), nature’s path (privately held) food for life (38 employees; independent), and probably trader joes.
They all would either be excluded from the analysis in the article or put under “private label” which is increasing slightly over time.
However, their combined marketing budget is some tiny fraction of the companies pumping out unhealthy garbage.
Maybe if finding non-terrible cereal wasn’t a complicated project, then sales would start ticking back up.
[+] [-] ipnon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nataliste|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user3939382|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _fat_santa|2 years ago|reply
If I had to make a bet I'd say in the next decade of so, Kellogs and other cereal manufacturers will kill off most of their cereal brands, keep a few well known brands around, and make a shift to the "healthier cereals" space that's occupied by these smaller players and private labels.
[+] [-] hollerith|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] consoomer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakebasile|2 years ago|reply
I will treat myself to a bowl of Lucky Charms every once in a while, though.
[+] [-] conradludgate|2 years ago|reply
Some of my favourite cereals are shredded wheat, cheerios, rice krispies. All very simple cereals. If you're feeling fancy you can have a porridge with jam or a granola with no fruits.
The only thing to say is the milk. I know a lot of people develop lactose interances as an adult so it might be troublesome to keep having such a high lactose intake. I think some milk alternatives are much nicer nowadays and add some of their own sweetness to cereal if you like that. I personally have no issues with my low fat dairy milk every morning
[+] [-] Animats|2 years ago|reply
So the profitable sector is feeding fat people?
[+] [-] SOLAR_FIELDS|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsynnott|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nxobject|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poorbutdebtfree|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dav_Oz|2 years ago|reply
But I observed the same thing later in high school when I got up on time but forgot to buy milk and hence went to school fasted.
Back then, I thought "break(ing your)fast" was somehow important for your energy levels at the start of the day (good PR!) so I was hesitant to follow really through and I guess the latent sugar cravings did the rest (but I remember not being "hangry" as others described it).
Now, after experimenting with a lot of regiments, I know that I'm far better off by "skipping breakfast". As a general rule of thumb giving your body a rest time of 12 hours and not eating 2 hours before sleeping gives your body an additional strong signal for its diurnal coordination.
That being said I knew a very athletic guy who before sleeping devoured 3000kcal (he barely ate throughout the day) and then judging by his exceptional body composition and athletic achievements could recover excellently.
[+] [-] ilrwbwrkhv|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kwertyoowiyop|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beauzero|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidcollantes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xnx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SOLAR_FIELDS|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsynnott|2 years ago|reply
Diamonds, another product which makes no sense outside the context of marketing are presumably some other marketing failure, possibly just failure of the industry to address bad press.
[+] [-] fortran77|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tempest1981|2 years ago|reply
My favorite was the bidirectional boxes in Mexico, after being forced to add warning labels on the front:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37245593
> Companies like Coca-Cola and Kraft Heinz have begun designing their products so that their packages don’t have a true front or back, but rather two nearly identical labels — except for the fact that only one side has the required warning. As a result, supermarket clerks often place the products with the warning facing inward, effectively hiding it.
[+] [-] suckitsam|2 years ago|reply