Hacker News Reader

Comment by nnurmanov | Hacker News Reader

I went little further. I could not find low or no sugar Nestle cereals at the local supermarket, then I asked their support if they have something with low sugar. Their rep wrote that they have lowered the sugar amount by 34% from 2000 to 2010, but it is still not clear if those amount are OK, when I taste the sugar amount is definitely high. I do think the government should step in and promote healthy food and habits

View on HN

So many of these "we lowered X" things are simply "We cut the portion size down by 34% to hit calorie/sugar goals".

That's where you get dumb things like "Here's a candy bar with 3.5 servings" to try and trick a consumer into thinking it's not as calorie dense as it is.

It's really tragic that lots of Americans think this kind of garbage is a healthier alternative to other kinds of breakfast. It may actually have less sugar than pancakes drenched in some disgusting syrup, but it's still garbage. There's a real problem with nutritional literacy in this country. The manufacturers of these products really aren't helping here either. Cheerios have a big 'CAN LOWER CHOLERSTEROL' plastered on the front of the pack, but the contents are still literally 24% added sugar.

From the Cheerios box in my cupboard: 140 calories per serving, 1g added sugar per serving. 1g carb = 4 calories. 4 / 140 = 3%.

I would not be at all surprised if some flavor of Cheerios is 24% added sugar, but regular Cheerios are not so bad in the sugar department.

> 1g added sugar per serving

That is still a good amount of sugar given it’s every day and setting your morning baseline. If taken with e.g. a refined juice or sweetened coffee, that’s probably setting one up for sugar cravings in a few hours.

A slice of bread (in the U.S.) has more than 1g of added sugar (and less than 140 calories). (If you know of any besides Ezekiel that have less sugar, I would like to hear about it.) I don't think it is fair to villainize Cheerios when it is one of the least offensive options among ultraprocessed breakfast cereals. Especially based on... other things that aren't Cheerios? Juice (20+ g sugar) and coffee sweetener (4+ g sugar) would be the villains in this scenario.

> don't think it is fair to villainize Cheerios when it is one of the least offensive options among ultraprocessed breakfast cereals

You’re correct. I’m damning the whole category within the context of this discussion.

1g of sugar per serving is hardly anything. You are weakening your argument by being hyperbolic.

> 1g of sugar per serving is hardly anything

I'll stand by it being "a good amount" given it's incorporated into a daily ritual.

What is the serving size and more importantly how does the serving size compare to what people actually eat?

Serving size is 1.5 cups. Regardless of how much people eat, it's still only 3% added sugar.

There's nothing wrong with the "can lower cholesterol" banner on it because it's a source of whole grains and it has no saturated fat. That combo generally does lower cholesterol when put to the test, and it probably is one of the best cereals in the aisle.

Directing people towards better alternatives is a good thing.

Is this regular Cheerios, or Honey Nut?

The Honey Nut Cheerios are glazed in sugar, but the plain Cheerios (to my taste) don't have much if any. Don't have any here to check the ingredients though. If I want cereal for breakfast I generally make plain oatmeal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com