The Life Ledger

Fitness is a way of life.

photo credit: thelifeledger

Childhood obesity is becoming such an epidemic that many schools are taking steps to increase the nutrition and exercise awareness of both their students and their students’ parents. Take, for example, this article covering changes recently instituted by five Philadelphia schools:

Five Philadelphia elementary schools replaced sodas with fruit juice. They scaled back snacks and banished candy. They handed out raffle tickets for wise food choices. They spent hours teaching kids, their parents and teachers about good nutrition.

As a result, “the number of kids who got fat during the two-year experiment was half the number of kids who got fat in schools that didn’t make those efforts.” Which is great, but of course not nearly enough. What we need is more education and awareness about what we feed our children. For instance, the cereal we feed them.

A recent article on Medical News Today about children’s cereal caught my eye. The article cites a recent study conducted by Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, which concluded that children’s cereals are higher in calories, sugar and salt than adult cereals, despite marketing claims to the contrary. The article goes on to summarize the study:

[Marlene] Schwartz and her colleagues examined 161 breakfast cereals from four leading manufacturers and compared nutritional values of children’s and nonchildren’s cereals to national guidelines. They found that when comparing nutrients per gram, children’s cereals were higher in calories, sodium, carbohydrate, and sugar, but significantly lower in fiber and protein. They also found that the majority of children’s cereals, 66 percent, failed to meet national recommended nutritional standards for foods sold in schools.

I couldn’t find a copy of the study itself, so I thought I’d conduct a spot-check myself. When selecting children’s cereal and adult cereal, I concentrated on marketing and shelf placement in the grocery store, as one Yale Rudd Center study points out that

Children are exposed to an estimated 10 000 advertisements for food per year, 95% of which are for fast foods, candy, sugared cereal and soft drinks (13). By pre-school, the child begins to have preferences for certain products and, according to McNeal, is a ‘consumer by influence’ (14). Advertisers place cereal boxes at child eye level because they know that toddlers can recognize brands of cereal and request them from their seat in the grocery cart.

Based on ads and shelf placement, I selected three cereals marketed as “healthy” children’s cereals and two “healthy” adult cereals, because let’s face it - comparing Trix to Allbran is just a tad unfair, and you shouldn’t be feeding your child that un-food anyway. Let’s see how they stack up.

Children’s Cereals

Cheerios

photo credit: Z(-_-)F

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 cup (28 grams)
Calories, without milk: 100
Sodium: 190mg
Sugar: 1g

Ingredients
Whole grain oats, modified corn starch, sugar, oat bran, salt, calcium carbonate, oat fiber, potassium phosphate, corn starch, wheat starch, vitamin E

Kix

photo credit: sajrow

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 1/4 cup (30 grams)
Calories, without milk: 110
Sodium: 210mg
Sugar: 3g

Ingredients
corn (whole grain corn, meal), whole grain oats, ugar, corn bran, modified corn starch, corn syrup, salt, calcium carbonate, trisodium phosphate, vitamin E, misc vitamins

Wheaties

photo credit: tape

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 3/4 cup (27 grams)
Calories, without milk: 100
Sodium: 190mg
Sugar: 4g

Ingredients
whole grain wheat, sugar, salt, corn syrup, trisodium phosphate, BHT, misc vitamins

Adult Cereals

All-bran

photo credit: davekellam

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1/2 cup (31 grams)
Calories, without milk: 80
Sodium: 80mg
Sugar: 6g

Ingredients
wheat bran, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, malt flavoring, calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, salt, sodium ascorbate and ascorbic acid (vitamin c), misc vitamins

Special K

photo credit: Paul Cheek

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 cup (31 grams)
Calories, without milk: 120
Sodium: 220mg
Sugar: 4g

Ingredients
rice, wheat gluten, sugar, defatted wheat germ, salt, high fructose corn syrup, dried whey, malt flavoring, calcium caseinate, misc vitamins

The Comparison

I think visually, so I’ve created a table with what I think are the most important comparisons to draw between the five cereals. *I’ve changed the serving size to make the numbers directly comparable.

The takeaway I get? Eat fruit, not cereal. If you need to serve cereal, Cheerios looks like the least evil. The other takeaway? I need to find a new recipe for my bran muffins.

Thank you for visiting The Life Ledger. If you enjoyed this article, check out the related posts below and subscribe to our feed.

In March of last year, I wrote an article about Subway’s white and wheat breads, and whether the wheat bread actually is the healthy alternative. It turned out white was healthier. I noticed Subway modified their ingredients listing this month (and, I’m sure, several times between), so I wonder - since Subway still claims to be the healthy fast-food alternative, and people have a perception that anything “wheat” is the healthy alternative, has Subway stopped lying to its customers? Let’s find out.

First, here’s the old and new ingredients list:

Old list, quoted from my post dated 3/20/07:

WHEAT BREAD
Enriched flour (flour, malted barley flour, niacin, iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, whole wheat flour, high fructose corn syrup, wheat gluten, contains less than 2% of the following: wheat bran, yeast, salt, soybean oil, dough conditioner (acetylated tartaric acid esters of mono-and diglycerides, ammonium sulfate, calcium sulfate, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, potassium iodate, amylase (enzymes)], cracked wheat, sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate, caramel color (contains sulfites), dried honey preparation (honey powder, invert sugar, wheat starch, soy bran flour, silicon dioxide [anti-caking]), mineral oil. Contains soy and wheat.

New list, dated 01/2008:

WHEAT BREAD
Enriched flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, whole wheat flour, high fructose corn syrup. Contains less than 2% of the following: yeast, wheat bran, bleached oat hull fiber, vital wheat gluten, salt, soybean oil, dough conditioner, acetylated tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides, calcium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, potassium iodate, enzymes [amylase]), cracked wheat, sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate, caramel color (contains sulfites), refiners syrup, dried honey, mineral oil. Contains wheat.

And the caloric information for the two breads, first dated 3/20/07:

And the new chart, taken from Subway’s nutrition information page on 1/4/08:

The only difference I see is wheat bread’s listed dietary fiber - up from 3g to 4g. The wheat bread still has more calories and fat than white bread, and contains high fructose corn syrup and lists a refined wheat as the first ingredient. Sure, there’s not a drastic nutritional difference between Subway’s white and wheat breads, but that’s just the point - not only is there not much difference, the white bread seems slightly nutritionally healthier. Just another reminder - “wheat” doesn’t always equate “healthy.”

Wheat bread is better than white. Right? Apparently not, especially at Subway.

I did a little bit of research before, but I’ve since gotten a lot more curious. My wife and I have always gotten sandwiches on wheat bread, operating under the assumption that it’s healthier. I decided to take a look and see if that’s actually true.

Here’s Subway’s nutrition information for bread, with white and wheat highlighted:

And Subway’s ingredients list for white and wheat breads:

ITALIAN (WHITE) BREAD
Enriched flour (wheat flour, barley malt, niacin, iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, sugar, contains less than 2% of the following: soybean oil, yeast, salt, wheat protein isolate, wheat gluten, dough conditioners (acetylated tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides, ammonium sulfate, calcium sulfate, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, potassium iodate, amylase [enzymes]), sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate, mineral oil. Contains soy and wheat.

WHEAT BREAD
Enriched flour (flour, malted barley flour, niacin, iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, whole wheat flour, high fructose corn syrup, wheat gluten, contains less than 2% of the following: wheat bran, yeast, salt, soybean oil, dough conditioner (acetylated tartaric acid esters of mono-and diglycerides, ammonium sulfate, calcium sulfate, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, potassium iodate, amylase (enzymes)], cracked wheat, sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate, caramel color (contains sulfites), dried honey preparation (honey powder, invert sugar, wheat starch, soy bran flour, silicon dioxide [anti-caking]), mineral oil. Contains soy and wheat.

Immediately, three things jump out at me:

1. The wheat bread has high-fructose corn syrup. As the medical community studies HFCS more, we are coming to understand it’s connection with obesity, due largely to how it interacts with insulin, ghrelin and leptin.
2. The wheat bread has the same calories, more fat and more carbs.
3. The first ingredient listed is refined flour.

Suddenly, Subway wheat bread is looking less like a healthier alternative to Subway white bread. What about the wrap? Ten less calories, twice the fat, five less carbs, the same refined flour and a bunch of ingredients I can’t pronounce. I’m sticking to the salads. (I wonder what those ingredients are? I’ll have to look into it.)

Eating at Subway is a good example of why it’s important to exercise awareness of what you eat - Subway markets itself on being the “healthy alternative” to fast food, with healthier menu items than other restaurants and the misleading name of the franchise owner, Doctor’s Associates Inc. However, if you simply buy into the marketing and assume Subway is the “healthy alternative”, you can easily make some mindless, habitual choices and build a sandwich with more calories than a Big Mac. For instance, their nutrition information lists sandwiches with “6 grams of fat or less”. My wife likes the veggie sandwiches, so we’ll take that as an example:

She likes her sandwich with provolone cheese (+50 calories), mayonnaise (+110 calories/tblsp, we’ll assume one tblsp although I’m sure in reality it’s more), and vinegar/oil (+45/tsp, we’ll assume 2 tsp for +90 calories). Let’s compare caloric values:

• Plain 6″ veggie sandwich: 230 calories
• My wife’s 6″ veggie sandwich: 480 calories, more than double a plain sandwich
• Who eats a footlong at once? You’re consuming 960 calories
• And a Big Mac? 540 calories.
• Other 6″ plain Subway sandwich choices for comparison:
  • Cold Cut Combo: 410 calories
  • Meatball Marinara: 560 calories
  • Chipotle Steak & Cheese: 530 calories
  • Tuna: 530 calories (I thought the Tuna sandwich was supposed to be one of the healthy ones!

I don’t want to sound like I’m ragging on Subway - to borrow a phrase from Bill Mahrer, “I kid the Doctor’s Associates!” I realize that it’s your choice to not add mayonnaise and cheese to an otherwise healthy-ish meal. I realize that no matter the caloric value, a Subway veggie sandwich is probably at least a little healthier than a Big Mac, if only for the fact there’s a few raw veggies between the bread slices. I do, however, think it’s important to investigate the truth behind marketing when Subway claims to be the healthy alternative. You can’t maintain a healthy lifestyle and make healthy food choices when you don’t educate yourself about the food you eat.

I’m still curious about those bread ingredients. I think I’ll look into those next…