Lion Bar Cereal

FIRE

Just noticed these down in Tesco, Has anyone tried them yet?

On special offer for €2

Medicine333

FIRE wrote: »

Just noticed these down in Tesco, Has anyone tried them yet?

On special offer for €2

Cool!! I'd say it's loaded with sugar, and hundreds of calories but cool!!!:)

Mellor

Medicine333 wrote: »

Cool!! I'd say it's loaded with sugar, and hundreds of calories but cool!!!:)

So just like every other cereal then.

Medicine333

Mellor wrote: »

So just like every other cereal then.

Not exactly, no. Not every cereal is loaded with sugar and has hundreds of calories.

I'm more of a porridge/egg person anyway. I don't take cereal.

marcus2000

i suddenly have a hankering for a lion bar.

Medicine333

emeraldstar wrote: »

The majority of your standard cereals are tbh.

Oh, believe me, I know.

I'm just stating that not every cereal is.

It is incredible the nit-picking and fights people get into on these threads over nothing.

Calm down.

emeraldstar

Medicine333 wrote: »

Not exactly, no. Not every cereal is loaded with sugar

The majority of your standard cereals are tbh.

emeraldstar

Medicine333 wrote: »

Oh, believe me, I know.

I'm just stating that not every cereal is.

It is incredible the nit-picking and fights people get into on these threads over nothing.

Calm down.

Calm down??

You're the one who nitpicked!

Medicine333

emeraldstar wrote: »

Calm down??

You're the one who nitpicked!

Somebody seems to be low on sugar......


why not try a bowl of lion bar cereal?:p

emeraldstar

Medicine333 wrote: »

Somebody seems to be low on sugar......


why not try a bowl of lion bar cereal?:p

Ah I'm grand, I've got some Ben & Jerry's in the freezer for later. Probably better for me too...

EyeSight

i had them a few years ago in france and they were awesome. which tesco did you find them in? i hope they have them here permanently

in the mornings i usually have a boring cereal cause i can't stand sugar at that hour. but for a mid afternoon snack i love the sugar ones

Mellor

Medicine333 wrote: »

Not exactly, no. Not every cereal is loaded with sugar and has hundreds of calories.

I'm with emeraldstar, they pretty much do in the majority of cases. I had a quick google check there and the lion cereal has less carbs and sugar than coco pops or frosties. And even the cereals where the sugar is lower, the total calories are around the same.

Medicine333

Mellor wrote: »

I'm with emeraldstar, they pretty much do in the majority of cases. I had a quick google check there and the lion cereal has less carbs and sugar than coco pops or frosties. And even the cereals where the sugar is lower, the total calories are around the same.

You said every cereal is though:)

I was simply correcting you. There are quite a few cereals actually that aren't loaded with sugar and 'hundreds' of calories.

JohnK

Not much of a cereal person but yeah I've had a few bowls of it and its not too bad at all. I'd probably get it again.

EyeSight wrote: »

i had them a few years ago in france and they were awesome. which tesco did you find them in? i hope they have them here permanently

I got them in a Dunnes (Douglas, Cork) last weekend so they're probably everywhere at the moment.

EyeSight

found them in tesco, they;re on offer at the moment, 2 euros each so i bought a few
i should point out they only sell 400g boxes

Mellor

Medicine333 wrote: »

You said every cereal is though:)

I was simply correcting you. There are quite a few cereals actually that aren't loaded with sugar and 'hundreds' of calories.

I was illustrating a point. That should of been obvious.
What cereals are you talking about that aren't hundreds of calories. I don't think the lion cereal is much different to other options I've. I don't think it's a good option compared to oats ir eggs but it's prob no worse than a bowl of muesli.

Medicine333

Mellor wrote: »

I was illustrating a point. That should of been obvious.
What cereals are you talking about that aren't hundreds of calories. I don't think the lion cereal is much different to other options I've. I don't think it's a good option compared to oats ir eggs but it's prob no worse than a bowl of muesli.

Off the top of my head, a serving of SpecialK, Cornflakes, All-Bran-they do not have hundreds of calories, I think it is around the 126 mark.

I don't know why you feel the need to keep arguing with me. Not every cereal is loaded with kCals and sugar.

Mellor

Medicine333 wrote: »

Off the top of my head, a serving of SpecialK, Cornflakes, All-Bran-they do not have hundreds of calories, I think it is around the 126 mark.

I don't know why you feel the need to keep arguing with me. Not every cereal is loaded with kCals and sugar.

I'm not arguing just for the sake with it. You disagreed with me and I'm entitled to defend my post. I really think you are mid judging cereal in general. Special K isn't a healthy option imo, it's just marketed that way.

A 30g "serving" of Special K is 114 calories. CornFlakes is about the same. The Lion cereal is 122 calories per 30g. Not a significant difference. Macros are slightly different but no better or worse imo. So I still think its no worse than any other cereal.

Medicine333

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not arguing just for the sake with it. You disagreed with me and I'm entitled to defend my post. I really think you are mid judging cereal in general. Special K isn't a healthy option imo, it's just marketed that way.

A 30g "serving" of Special K is 114 calories. CornFlakes is about the same. The Lion cereal is 122 calories per 30g. Not a significant difference. Macros are slightly different but no better or worse imo. So I still think its no worse than any other cereal.

I never said it was a healthy option. Point that out in my posts and I will duly apologise.

EyeSight

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not arguing just for the sake with it. You disagreed with me and I'm entitled to defend my post. I really think you are mid judging cereal in general. Special K isn't a healthy option imo, it's just marketed that way.

A 30g "serving" of Special K is 114 calories. CornFlakes is about the same. The Lion cereal is 122 calories per 30g. Not a significant difference. Macros are slightly different but no better or worse imo. So I still think its no worse than any other cereal.

i think special K and the likes are healthy alternatives. they have a lot less sugar and fats. its important to remember that calories are not the only thing to consider when choosing foods. some healthy foods my have similar calories to junk food but they keep you "fuller" for longer so that you don't have to keep eating to suppress your appetite

as for eggs, i remember reading a few years back that nobody knows if they are in fact healthy. while its pretty much universally accepted that egg whites are good for you, there is disagreement about egg yolks. And a lot of the way used to cook eggs are not considered healthy. frying for obvious reasons, scrambled because you're adding milk butter and salt and so on.

Mellor

Medicine333 wrote: »

I never said it was a healthy option. Point that out in my posts and I will duly apologise.

I never said you did. That was never the point.
I said it was no different to other cereals, you disagreed. I've posted the data above to back up my point. If you still disagree, that's up to you. But I've made my point.

So, back on topic;
Lion cereal is prob pretty tasty but Peanut Lion would be better again. Do they still make peanut lions?

Medicine333

Mellor wrote: »

I never said you did. That was never the point.
I said it was no different to other cereals, you disagreed. I've posted the data above to back up my point. If you still disagree, that's up to you. But I've made my point.

So, back on topic;
Lion cereal is prob pretty tasty but Peanut Lion would be better again. Do they still make peanut lions?

I disagreed with you saying every cereal is loaded with sugar and full of calories. Your post proved my point. Every cereal doesn't fit that criteria. Thanks.

Mellor

Medicine333 wrote: »

I disagreed with you saying every cereal is loaded with sugar and full of calories. Your post proved my point. Every cereal doesn't fit that criteria. Thanks.

Like i said you can think what you want. My i'm actually only trying to give you (any anyone reading) a bit of helpful information.
Have a look at the Nutrition forum, any of the posters that know what they are talking about don't have a good opinion of cereals. Remember a 30g serving is what is quoted on the box, not whats used in practice. I would estimate that a normal bowl is twice that, then the milk on top is c.100 calories -that comes to almost 350 calories. And also high GI. Which fits what I originally described.

rubadub

EyeSight wrote: »

i think special K and the likes are healthy alternatives. they have a lot less sugar and fats.

The problem is defining what "the likes" are. Special K is 17% sugar, branflakes are 22% sugar. These are marketed as healthy and I think a real danger to this is people will continue to add additional sugar as they think they have little or none added already. So they might end up with more sugar than frosties.

Special k is 379kcal per 100g, lion bar cereal is 405kcal per 100g, flanhavans 100% oats 387 kcal per 100g

EyeSight

rubadub wrote: »

The problem is defining what "the likes" are. Special K is 17% sugar, branflakes are 22% sugar. These are marketed as healthy and I think a real danger to this is people will continue to add additional sugar as they think they have little or none added already. So they might end up with more sugar than frosties.

Special k is 379kcal per 100g, lion bar cereal is 405kcal per 100g, flanhavans 100% oats 387 kcal per 100g

i was talking about the cereals which are marketed for being healthier, like bran flakes, fruit and fiber etc. i can't list them all here but by reading the ingredients you can get the idea.
also as i mentioned in the rest of my post, just because they have similar amounts of calories doesn't mean they're the same. if you ate a 100g bowl of special k you would suppress your appetite more and get better nourishment than you would from a 100g bowl of coco pops

it is not up to the makers of healthy cereals to account for people who may add extra sugar. if these people think adding sugar to foods will keep them healthy then they really need to educate themselves. it comes down to personal taste i guess, i find special k to be quite tasty as it is

DERPY HOOFS

Its very sugary i had some with milk and it was nice.I would not give it to kids though as it is very high in sugar.

Mellor

EyeSight wrote: »

if you ate a 100g bowl of special k you would suppress your appetite more and get better nourishment than you would from a 100g bowl of coco pops

I really don't think there would be much difference. Maybe slightly better as the carbs are a little lower GI. The equivilent amount of calories from a protein based source would be far more filling. Even oats would be more filling imo.
We are aware that there is more to satiety than calories alone, but special K isn't that actually that great in terms of those things.

if these people think adding sugar to foods will keep them healthy then they really need to educate themselves. it comes down to personal taste i guess, i find special k to be quite tasty as it is

There is already sugar that comes out of the box as standard. Granted its slightly lower than other cereals. But carbs are higher and protein is lower. In all, I think that balances out.
Nobody is saying its a bad choice, just that its not significantly better than other cereals. And worse than non-cereal options. but the public preception is different due to the marketing.

TimeToWander

Decided to buy it yesterday after standing in the cereal isle for what felt like half a day.. it's okay, tastes just like every other nestle chocolate cereal though !

rubadub

EyeSight wrote: »

i was talking about the cereals which are marketed for being healthier, like bran flakes, fruit and fiber etc. i can't list them all here but by reading the ingredients you can get the idea.

Thats what I was getting at too, you have to read ingredients. You illustrate my point exactly, you included branflakes in your list, which are 22% sugar. This is the problem, figuring out what "the likes" are. I view branflakes as being incredibly bland junk food.

EyeSight wrote: »

it is not up to the makers of healthy cereals to account for people who may add extra sugar.

The problem with this is people are suffering eating this bland junk and probably having an extra treat later on for "being good", when they have already fallen off the wagon. These marketing men are conmen, people may be add adding sugar to stuff they wrongly presume is very low in added sugar. They do need to educate themselves, the ignorance out there is shocking, and these scumbag advertisers are not helping. At least these lion bar guys are not knowingly trying to trick people.

EyeSight wrote: »

just because they have similar amounts of calories doesn't mean they're the same.

+1, sorry, my comments were aimed at the guy repeatedly saying not all cereals have 100's of calories, when in fact they are all fairly similar per 100g, 35% added sugar or no added sugar.-

Medicine333 wrote: »

I'm more of a porridge/egg person anyway. I don't take cereal.

The fact you don't class porridge as cereal is interesting. I think nowadays most people take it as a colloquial term meaning 'high sugar junk you add milk to' rather than the connection to grains. Remember the rice krispies ad campaign, 'what did you think they were made from?' I eat uncooked porridge oats with a little maple syrup & cold milk.

ShaneK101

Medicine333 wrote: »

Cool!! I'd say it's loaded with sugar, and hundreds of calories but cool!!!:)

Thats why I didnt buy it
Say it would be SEXY tho..!

emeraldstar

ShaneK101 wrote: »

Thats why I didnt buy it
Say it would be SEXY tho..!

Sexiness is one of the last qualities I'd look for in a cereal...

Mellor

emeraldstar

...or I could be wrong!