Kelloggs All Bran - Healthy?

Beetlebum

Hi Guys,

Just a quick question, the kitchen in work is usually stocked with porridge so I'd have this every morning but recently teh girl in charge of ordering supplies decided to get in loads of All Bran.

I'm just wondering if this is actually healthy at all? It claims to be full of fibre but I had a bowel a minute ago and it tasted really sugary even though I added no sugar, only low fat milk.

Is this high in claories (I can't really understand the guidelines) or would porridge be a better option?

I can just bring in my own porridge but was curious to see if All Bran is as healthy as the packaging would have us believe...

Ciaran500

http://www.kellogg.co.uk/products/allbran/Cereal/all_bran.aspx
Ingredients
Wheat Bran (86%), Sugar, Barley Malt Flavouring, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Salt, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin D, Vitamin B12.

So theres added sugar, glucose-fructose syrup and salt. Its not a healthy cereal. Lots of fibre though

I think Shredded Wheat and Oats are the only cereals that don't have added sugar. I only eat Porridge these days. Or cornflakes if I'm going nuts on my holidays :pac:

Oh how I love cereal

Edit: sorry, to answer your question, yes Porridge is definitely the healthier option, it's healthier than any other cereal.

Beetlebum

Aw...I thought as much..damn.
I love cornflakes with really cold milk or weetabix with warm milk...why can't it be good for you:mad:

Transform

Beetlebum wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Just a quick question, the kitchen in work is usually stocked with porridge so I'd have this every morning but recently teh girl in charge of ordering supplies decided to get in loads of All Bran.

I'm just wondering if this is actually healthy at all? It claims to be full of fibre but I had a bowel a minute ago and it tasted really sugary even though I added no sugar, only low fat milk.

Is this high in claories (I can't really understand the guidelines) or would porridge be a better option?

I can just bring in my own porridge but was curious to see if All Bran is as healthy as the packaging would have us believe...

computer says no

corkcomp

Beetlebum wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Just a quick question, the kitchen in work is usually stocked with porridge so I'd have this every morning but recently teh girl in charge of ordering supplies decided to get in loads of All Bran.

I'm just wondering if this is actually healthy at all? It claims to be full of fibre but I had a bowel a minute ago and it tasted really sugary even though I added no sugar, only low fat milk.

Is this high in claories (I can't really understand the guidelines) or would porridge be a better option?

I can just bring in my own porridge but was curious to see if All Bran is as healthy as the packaging would have us believe...

piece of string?

its not healthy compared with Porridge, there is no contest!

overall though, bran flakes are not that bad compared to the typical brekkie I see people eating like sausages, hash browns, coca pops, breakfast rolls etc.

Bigdeadlydave

I always eat Sultana Bran, suppose thats unhealthy too?

Beetlebum

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

I always eat Sultana Bran, suppose thats unhealthy too?

Probably!! Seems that anything even remotely tasty is bad for you. Even when you think you're being good you're probably being bad..at least Guinness is good for you...packed full of iron and...oh wait...they took that away too:(

It's relative to what the rest of your diet is like though isn't it? (I'm sure I'm probably wrong on that :pac:). If the rest of your day is filled with protein and veg then there is no harm in having the odd bowl of cereal in the morning. It's not the worst thing you could eat - better than a danish or a croissant!

Lou.m

I can just bring in my own porridge but was curious to see if All Bran is as healthy as the packaging would have us believe...

Yes at about 120 calories in per good sized bowel ) about 35 g with skimmed non fat milk and plenty of fibre for your digestive system i would say YES at 4.6grms of sugar with 9grms of fibre

Porridge 180calories per serving ( obviously depending on the brand) grms of fibre 6.4grms of sugar and 3.4 grms of fibre ...

its not healthy compared with Porridge, there is no contest!

No not true all bran is lower in sugar lower in calories higher in fibre than most porridge brands....but porridge is still healthy...

But all brands are diff...just read the nutritional facts at the back

Just look at the nutritional info ...at the back...for YOUR serving size and method of prep...

Allbran is lower in cals than most porridge brands and higher in fibre...but you need to check the info
All foods have sugar in them..and you need some ...

Its sugar content is not that high compared to other cereals...

And it is the type of food that has sugar that can make a difference too

It is a slow burn food..

It keeps you full...good for your digestion

So yes i would say it is healthy ...VERY LOW in calories for what it is ...

Two slices of toast have much more salt and a bowl of fresh fruit has more sugar...

It is lower in calories than special K and MUCH higher in fibre..

And actually it is lower in calories than most porridge brands and higher in fibre ...even if you make you porridge with water..



Allbran is a very healthy cereal ..and delicious:-)

Nutritional facts ...All bran Sugar per 31 gram serving ..4.9 grms ...............81 calories(without milk 120 calories with milk) 9.1grms fiber....

Special k calories ...per serving 120 without milk ...sugar 4.0 grams...only 1grm of fiber...



An average bowel of fresh ( obviously depending on the fruits) fruit in the morning is lower in calories and higher in vitamins than all the above ..but lower in fibre than a lot of cereals and much higher in sugars...

Healthy is a balance of nutrients...


All bran is lower in calories than oddlums porridge per serving ..higher in fibre but also higher in sugar...

Sultana Bran .has 127 calories per serving...6grms of fiber BUT 13GRMS of sugar...which is four times the amount in allbran...but it has dried fruit which is high in sugar..

But we should stop thinking about sugar as bad...it depends in the type of sugar and the type of food it is in..

GUESS THE NUTRITIONAL INFO ON COCO POPS ...

Well per serving ...116 calories ...10grms of sugar 0grms of fiber(high but still less that the sultana bran) ...it is an empty sugar buzz though ...so no nutrition ..you will just crave more and feel you need to eat more..less calories and sugar than the sultana bran ...but less in other nutrients ...
Coco pops have fewer calories than most porridge brands in fact but have MUCH more sugar and less fibre...and so which is healthier..?? prob porridge in the long term...maybe coco pops if you are one of those weight watcher freaks ..
Cereals high in sugar though are very bad for the teeth..


I dont know why people just dont read the nutritional info at the back it gives you sodium content and sugar content fibre calories etc..balance it..

Healthy is what healthy is for your needs....

And when you start looking into it and balancing it all ... calories against nutrition etc...you start seeing the value of some higher calorie foods nutritionally some times like brown bread...but if you have a prob eating too much in cals you might think twice etc...a mini chocolate bars sometimes is lower in calories than an orange..but no nutrition etc...and the opposite you can be eating what you THINK are healthy foods and have a far higher sugar or calorie intake than is actually healthy

So i would say if it comes to a simple decision between porridge and all bran...look at the info on the pack...and decide what you need relative to your lifestyle and what you might like to eat for the rest of the day..but allbran would seem the Slightly healthier choice ..but to be honest they are both fine and you might be splitting hairs...

dxhound2005

Please don't write bowel when you mean bowl, it will put me off my porridge.

Lou.m

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Please don't write bowel when you mean bowl, it will put me off my porridge.

HAHAH LOL .... All bran...Bowel/bowl ..Sorry :-)

It must have been the unconscious connection between the two.. ...:-)

Sorry to bring the tone down !!

Reminds of of the guy from the fast show....this week ..i have been mostly eating...

El_Dangeroso

Rule number one of eating healthy.

Try not to eat things made in a factory with ingredients that have more than 4 syllables.

Lou.m

Try not to eat things made in a factory with ingredients that have more than 4 syllables.

YES AND NO
Things can fool you...

Nutrient contained in raw state

Guess what this is:-)????
Salycilates
quercetin, epicatechin, and procyanidin B2.
Pantothenic acid (B5) 0.061 mg 1%
Vitamin B6 0.041 mg 3%
Folate (Vit. B9) 3 μg 1%
Vitamin C 4.6 mg 8%
Calcium 6 mg 1%
Iron 0.12 mg 1%
Magnesium 5 mg 1%
Phosphorus 11 mg 2%
Potassium 107 mg 2%
Zinc 0.04 mg 0%
Carbohydrates 13.81 g
- Sugars 10.39 g
- Dietary fiber 2.4 g
Fat 0.17 g
Protein 0.26 g
Vitamin A equiv. 3 μg 0%
Thiamin (Vit. B1) 0.017 mg 1%
Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 0.026 mg 2%
Niacin (Vit. B3) 0.091 mg 1%


One apple!

Weird names are natural sometimes and natural derivatives can be healthy also ....
Rule number one should be know the nutritional content of your food and understand it..evaluate it
Salycilate acid is the ingredient they put into aspirin it Aspirin is (acetylsalicylic acid) .....so this thing of take an aspirin a day well there are lots of salycilates in many fruits too...and has been shown to induce apoptosis in cancer cells

An apple a day really does keep the doctor away:-) !

But there are many products which do try boast a certain ingredient..

Whether they succeed or not is a matter of debate...but i would never say EVERYTHING made by man or with natural derivatives or man made ingredients is bad

All soya foods are man made ...not all are healthy ..but a good deal are...

Not all chemicals are bad..in fact some make food safer

Some foods have NATURALLY occurring contaminants...Mercury for example in fish...Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and accumulates in fish in the form of methyl-mercury. Our most common exposure to mercury is through fish and other seafood. Most people are not exposed to levels high enough to harm the nervous system as the body excretes it over time so accumulation is usually not a problem. ......However, unborn babies are potentially more sensitive to the harmful effects and their exposure to mercury should be limited. It is also recommended that if you eat a lot of fish, you restrict consumption of certain species high in mercury if you are pregnant in some countries...whereas some doctors think thats an overeaction ....It also depends on the species Shell fish in certain countries can have very high amounts

There are low levels of organic and inorganic arsenic in a lot of types of seaweed.... hijiki seaweed for example...it occurs naturally ..it is sold readily in a lot of asian shops and it is present in the seaweed in quite low levels..but the Uk food standards agency advises people not to consume it...
In addition, water often contains arsenic and extremely high levels may be found in groundwater from areas with geothermal activity and with arsenic rich rocks
Arsenic occurs in food in organic and inorganic forms. Most foods contain trace levels of arsenic. Fish and seafoods can accumulate considerable amounts of organic arsenic from their environment The arsenic content of plants is usually determined by the arsenic content of the soil, water and air.


There are similar stories with lots of different foods

Aspartame is a artificial sweetener low in calories and safe ....yet people go on about dont use artificial sweeteners the chemicals etc etc.. Claims are made from time to time about the potential for aspartame to cause cancer or other health problems. At least five robust published studies have looked into this. ........................All have been reviewed by regulators around the world, and all have concluded that aspartame demonstrates no such potential. Even with high doses, the metabolites of this sweetener do not accumulate in toxic amounts. ...............If you need or wish to limit your intake of sugars, and/or reduce your energy intake, there are clear benefits in consuming foods sweetened with aspartame or other artificial sweeteners. Aspartame is well tolerated by healthy adults and children.
at the RDA its fine ....not saying all the other chemicals in diet drinks are fine ...but it just makes you think

Natural additives like pectin can be given code names like thickener 440 (pectin is used sometimes as a thickener) The only reason they are given code NUMBERS is so they can be sold in many countries and the various inspecting agnecies can understand EXACTLY what they are For instance TUMERIC is E100 ..yes plain old TUMERIC...

Some code numbers may have an ‘E’ in front of them. This means that the food is labelled for the European Union market. And the term E number has been vilified ...all it means is that the food is labelled for the European market...the additive may be fine or harmful ..depending on what it is...
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/chemicals-nutrients-additives-and-toxins/list-of-food-additives.htmhttp://www.nzfsa.nz?consumers/chemicals-nutrients-additives-and-toxins/list-of-foodadditives.htm
This is a great site for additives allowed in food. What the numbers are and what they mean

Plus a lot of the additives actually make food safer...

In the Victorian era foods even FRESH foods on organic farms could be dangerous mould and bacteria grows quickly and can be dangerous preservatives stop dangerous bacteria ....organic foods often have little bits of mould etc which are fine ...but not always....

Some people fear organic foods are at more risk of E coli because of the manure used ...but its fine if the farm maintains
And all organic foods have some level of pesticide in them anway...

Truth is one mars bar won't kill you ...not all natural stuff is good ..i would avoid mouldy carrots..they probably won't kill you but hey... carrots with a few safe additives are fine etc etc ...strychnine is a natural derivative...

'E' followed by a number could be just Tumeric(E100 in this case ) ...or Riboflavin....E101 which you NEED (it is b2 vit)..but is also used as colouring...which is fine because you NEED it ..just look at the RDA and the amounts etc...taken orally because of its low solubility it is stopped from being absorbed in dangerous amounts in the gut ..but still ALWAYS look at the RDA and act accordingly..

I know i went WAY off topic

Sorry..:o

I just thought it was interesting though...when comparing foods ...and healthy choices etc...

I for one find it hard to understand ..i mean antioxidants ...many foods claim this now ..well these are mostly additives like ascorbic acid ( found naturally in a lot of fruits) but added to food ...really to stop the oxidisation of the food molecules itself...to stop it going rancid..but i have heard companies making great claims for such antioxidants and health food shops selling them...this stuff has been around in food for ages ..

And some of it makes food better some doesn't

Ciaran500

Lou.m wrote: »

Yes at about 120 calories in per good sized bowel ) about 35 g with skimmed non fat milk and plenty of fibre for your digestive system i would say YES at 4.6grms of sugar with 9grms of fibre

Porridge 180calories per serving ( obviously depending on the brand) grms of fibre 6.4grms of sugar and 3.4 grms of fibre ...

Not sure what brand you're using as an example but Flahavans has very little sugar compared your values. http://www.thedailyplate.com/nutrition-calories/food/flahavans/organic-porridge-oats

A realistic size bowel of All Bran, at least 50g, has 9g of sugar compared to 1g in porridge.

Sapsorrow

Lou.m wrote: »

YES AND NO
Things can fool you...

Nutrient contained in raw state

Guess what this is:-)????
Salycilates
quercetin, epicatechin, and procyanidin B2.
Pantothenic acid (B5) 0.061 mg 1%
Vitamin B6 0.041 mg 3%
Folate (Vit. B9) 3 μg 1%
Vitamin C 4.6 mg 8%
Calcium 6 mg 1%
Iron 0.12 mg 1%
Magnesium 5 mg 1%
Phosphorus 11 mg 2%
Potassium 107 mg 2%
Zinc 0.04 mg 0%
Carbohydrates 13.81 g
- Sugars 10.39 g
- Dietary fiber 2.4 g
Fat 0.17 g
Protein 0.26 g
Vitamin A equiv. 3 μg 0%
Thiamin (Vit. B1) 0.017 mg 1%
Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 0.026 mg 2%
Niacin (Vit. B3) 0.091 mg 1%


One apple!

Ya but they're not really ingredients as such, thats just the nutritional composition of the apple a bit different to the ingredients list of a porcessed food which is the context Temple was speaking in.

I mean an ingredient of a food could be wheat, which could then be broken down further according to the chemical composition of a wheat kernal such as into protein types, starch types, vitamin and mineral content etc.. etc.. so it's not really a valid comparrison.

metamorphosis

Lou M - what you stated were not ingredients in the apple - it was the nutrient composition. different.

Secondly - your info on oats is wacked. no offense. Unless what you stated includes oats with milk, no oats in their plainest form has that much suger per bowl, let alone 100gms dry.

Thirdly, oats doesnt have any added suger, all bran does.

rubadub

Lou.m wrote: »

No not true all bran is lower in sugar lower in calories higher in fibre than most porridge brands....but porridge is still healthy...

But all brands are diff...just read the nutritional facts at the back

I think you need to look at the packs yourself, all bran is higher in sugar than any porridge I have ever seen. If fibre is a concern you can just get unsweetened bran and add it to your porridge.


http://www.kelloggs.co.uk/products/allbran/Cereal/all_bran_.aspx

Wheat Bran (87%), Sugar, Barley Malt Flavouring, Salt, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin D, Vitamin B12.

Salt is the highest added "mineral" in there. Some people would prefer to be eating oat bran too.

And I do not understand your concern about calories, esp. when you keep talking about "servings" as quoted on packets. I could make a serial which is 99% sugar with 1% rice, and say a serving is "only 20kcal". It would be an unrealistic serving size, just like 95% of cereal portion sizes are ridiculously small and bear no releation to the bowls you see them eating in adverts or pictured on boxes.

I wonder is Lou.m actually comparing Oats. Or is she looking at the likes of Odlums Creamy Oats(which has added sugar and I think also skimmed milk powder). The Flahavans Quick Oats in the little microwavable tub also have added ingredients. However Flahavans Porridge Oats have nothing added.

All Bran have sugar added.

corkcomp

this thread is getting silly in fairness. surely people can tell the difference between nutritional composition and (ADDED) ingredients? and there is a difference :rolleyes:
any no, all bran is not healthier than porridge, and by porridge I mean whole un processed oats

Excaptain

I'm not sure about Bran Flakes but a 30g breakdown of Porridge Oats (Odlums....I have a bag under my desk!!) is as follows:

Calories - 107
Protein - 3.3g
Carbs - 18g, of which sugars 0.3g
Fat - 2.4g of which saturated fat 0.5g
Fibre 2.7g

That is in their natural form without milk etc.

Kellogg's cereals are full over sugar. Stick with the porridge

Sapsorrow

I don't like long posts. This isn't a blog site for freelance journalism!