6 ms·
(as a Millenial) Oh no. Anyway. Even healthy cereal is incredibly energy dense, we have no need for it unless you're active enough (not so many wfh developers)
by fennecfoxy 3y ago
(as a Millenial) Oh no. Anyway.
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.
- tcbawo 3y agoIn 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.
- uncletaco 3y agoYou don’t buy it for nutrition. You buy it because it’s delicious and turns the milk into chocolate milk.
- diogenes4 3y agoHave people forgotten that sugar is literally a nutrient?
- Khartoum 3y agoAs a part of a balanced diet, yes. In the quantities we're all taking about, it's hard to say these "breakfasts" are positively contributing though.
- diogenes4 3y ago> As a part of a balanced diet, yes. It's a nutrient. This is an enumerable set of chemicals. Balancing nutrition is a different matter entirely. > In the quantities we're all taking about, it's hard to say these "breakfasts" are positively contributing though. I eat sugary cereals every morning, and it's about half my daily sugar consumption. I don't see any problem with it—I don't have diabetes, I have a healthy weight, etc. The idea that foods are somehow inherently bad because they're sugary is ridiculous. It's the eating habits that are unhealthy, not the food. Sugar isn't rat poison ffs.
- sillyfluke 3y agoI'm guessing rat poison in low enough quantities probably isn't rat poison either. The problem is to some people sugar is also more addictive than alcohol or their favorite recreational drug. I'm going out on a limb and guessing rat poison isn't as addictive to rats.
- diogenes4 3y ago> The problem is to some people sugar is also more addictive than alcohol or their favorite recreational drug. That's not a sugar problem, that's a consumption problem. It's also a necessary nutrient to function, so it's addictive somewhat by definition, like water is addictive, or oxygen is.
- sillyfluke 3y agoThis is taking the argument to extreme limits, you have to admit? I'm aware of no widespread instances of people self-reporting craving more oxygen than they need to function. There's probably a reason why there isn't an equally prevalent term like "sweet tooth" for many of the other daily required nutrients. It's probably because there aren't that many nutrients that illict an addiction that causes excessive consumption of said nutrient in a single day.
- diogenes4 3y ago> This is taking the argument to extreme limits, you have to admit? So is classifying foods as "unhealthy" or "healthy" but people do that all the time.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- slavik81 3y agoWarfarin is a particularly good example of the dose making the poison, as it is both a rat poison and a common prescription medication for people who are at risk of blood clots. An anticoagulant can be a useful medication, but taking too much is dangerous.
- scoofy 3y agoSugar is a toxin that we can derive caloric nutrition from. It would be like reminding people that alcohol is a nutrient.
- avgcorrection 3y agoSugar is a subset of carbohydrates which is a macronutrient. But you don't need sugar specifically if you want carbs and in fact it is a bad carbo alternative unless you are doing some vigorous activity and need a little boost. Personally though I eat a lot of it myself. Ideally I would only get maybe 15 grams of sugar a day, tops.
- diogenes4 3y ago> But you don't need sugar specifically if you want carbs That's what carbs are. Carbs are sugars. I don't see many people out here living off formaldehyde. If you eat bread, it's metabolized into sugars. If you eat potatoes, these are metabolized into sugars. I don't get the point.
- scoofy 3y ago“Sugar” is sucrose, which is fructose and glucose. We can use glucose as a nutrient… fructose is debatable. “Sugars” covers a wide variety of more complex chemicals, from maltose to lactose.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cultofmetatron 3y ago> sugar is literally a nutrient? so is iron, selenium, fats, proteins etc. dosage makes the poison. consider that in nature, the only way to get anything nearly as sugar dense as sugar was to invade the nests of territorial colonies of venemous wasp like insects. getting a spoon full of sugar took guts and commitment!
- diogenes4 3y ago> so is iron, selenium, fats, proteins etc. dosage makes the poison. Sure, but since when has "nutritious" meant "not poisonous"? It means "full of nutrients".
- lotsoweiners 3y ago> Who would buy that and consider it an even remotely nutritious meal, I don’t know. While I wouldn’t consider it nutritious, my kids have definitely gotten me to impulse purchase them lots of these goofy cereals like Reese’s puffs and Icee cereal. Almost always they try them and say they are disgusting and want to go back to the classics: Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, Fruity Pebbles etc.
- BoiledCabbage 3y agoI've gotta say your comment really fooled me there. They way you started and ended was not at all where I thought you were heading. Unless it was sarcasm, then kudos - becauaw I did actually laugh aloud at that twist ending.
- devmor 3y agoI’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.
- kaashif 3y ago> It takes barely more effort to make some scrambled eggs and toast/eggos Making scrambled eggs isn't all that hard but surely you see that pouring some cereal and milk in a bowl is a fraction of the effort, even if the absolute difference isn't that huge?
- hknapp 3y agoif you're a psychopath like me, you can microwave scrambled eggs. takes about a minute.
- devmor 3y agoThe difference in effort is not appreciable enough for me to consider it if I have the time to sit down and eat at the table anyways. The only time I would be concerned would be if I was pressed for time - in which case I’d be looking for something like a granola bar or protein shake over cereal.
- gonehome 3y agoAre 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).
- kamikaz1k 3y agoDepends on what the rest of your diet looks like, yea 315 calories where 80% of calories are from carbs isn’t good. If the rest of your day is high protein, and you have a good macro nutrient count, I guess it’s fine. If you’re in a time crunch (heh) you can always skip breakfast? A lot of my peers have started doing that (out of laziness) and we are all fine. There’s a product called magic spoons that does keto* cereal. They’re a lot more expensive, and they stick to your teeth a little. But I liked them when I had them. Food for thought (heh). Edit: autocorrect
- gonehome 3y agoNot everyone needs to be doing keto (especially if you’re active and doing cardio) - though getting protein in your diet I think is one of the few things that’s generally agreed to be good (I just use whey powder shakes as a vegetarian). I do often skip breakfast also, but will typically have cheerios as my first food around 1pm or so. There’s just so much snake oil nonsense with nutrition information that I’m highly skeptical of most claims.
- nwah1 3y agoYou're right to be skeptical. There's a lot of agendas, signalling, contrarianism, and ignorance involved in the area of nutrition. Cheerios are perfectly healthy for almost everyone. You don't need to buy an expensive buckwheat quinoa kale macadamia nut SuperFood(tm) A lot of the anti-carb stuff is from people who think eating meat all the time is best and don't want to hear different. Even if you (falsely) believed your ancestors were mainly hunters, that doesn't mean they were eating only supermarket steaks made of muscle tissue. They would've been eating all the tissues. Organ meats. Bon apetite.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- xyst 3y agoGrowing up. It was all “coco puffs”, “lucky charms”, “Frosted Flakes”. All sugary garbage. Wish I was never exposed to that junk. Getting off that stuff was 100X harder than cigarettes.
- j-a-a-p 3y agoSame here. Took me years trying and failing. What worked for me was a full stop on sugar and avoiding supermarkets, gasoline and train stations at the beginning. I read recently that sugar is disappearing from the average the kitchen cupboard in the Netherlands. Inspired by this my wife and me ritually disposed our sugar jar that was indeed unused for a long time.
- teekert 3y agoI indeed recently noticed that we still only have a sugar jar for my parents in law. Nobody else’s we know has sugar in their coffee or tea, and we hardly use it for cooking. I do stir fry chicory in honey on occasion btw :). Also sweet soy sauce or oister sauce is still a sugar source. Breakfast of the kids is still boterham with hagelslag sadly. I’m also from the Netherlands btw, if the hagelslag didn’t give it away.
- standardUser 3y agoI 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.
- scoofy 3y agoDecadence is only enjoyable in a world where effectively unlimited resources is normalized.
- tourmalinetaco 3y agoMore accurately, everything we learned is a lie. Diamonds are plentiful and now easy to mass produce; we even accept the reality of blood mines. Mainstream news media is by and large lying to us for their owner’s gains, whether that be politically, economically, or culturally. And finally most of the dietary information the government drilled into us about things like the “food pyramid” was wrong from the beginning and we’re again only just accepting that. Just like how we’re finally accepting that eggs and meats are good for you and that maybe the multi-billion dollar food industry selling us delicious bags of pure calories is evil in every respect.
- doubled112 3y agoI remember being in my teens, messing around, asking mom if eggs were good or bad for us this week? I'm in my 30s now. It turns out it was a lot of BS.
- skygazer 3y agoI think "everything we learned is a lie" is also a "lie." The news media seems to be full of people that are very similar to "normal people," like our parents and prior generations, that were and are trying to over-confidently distill certainty from vast and abundant ambiguity, and do so somewhat poorly. It's also amazing how forgiving our societies are, or how readily we escape personal consequences for mild to relatively serious false beliefs, and how slow we are to correct, even in the face of mounting evidence. It sometimes seems that while we may progress in some areas, we regress equally in others, like there's a natural conservation of folly, generation after generation of random walks. Maybe there's something adaptive to gullibility, because it surely hasn't killed off enough to diminish the prevalence. But I agree, every generation seems to confidently crystalize a gestalt of falsehoods, and pass those on to a new generation that are in the midst of over-correcting their own way to a new crystalized gestalt of falsehoods.
- Kretinsky 3y agoUnsweetened, natural oats with yogurt isn't so energy dense, is full of fiber and proteins, which will guarantee you with 4h+ of satiety. You can also add fruits and/or peanut butter if you want a bit of variety!
- teekert 3y agoThis is the true breakfast of champions indeed. Add some nuts and seeds for even more variety.