The Nutrition Diva Podcast: Are Sweetened Breakfast Cereals Really Bad For You?

Let me confess something right up front. I enjoy cold cereal for breakfast. I know that's not fashionable, and buying trends show that fewer people buy and consume cold cereal. 

But cereal with cutup bananas and nice cold whole milk is a great way to start the day. Of course, the question is: Is it the healthy way to start the day? 

First, let me say that I'm not completely anti-health. I do not eat Lucky Charms, Frosted Flakes, or Captain Crunch (hasn't he been promoted yet?). No, I like Shredded Wheat, Kashi Organic Cinnamon Harvest, and Life. Not the best, but certainly not the worst.

My guilt about eating these cereals met up with my curiosity when I heard episode 668 of The Nutrition Diva podcast. First, I also have to admit I have a crush on host Monica Reinagel. The woman has the voice of an angel, and actually she's also a successful opera singer. Therefore, words flow from her like a Puccini opera. 

Anyway, Reinagel may sound angelic, but when it comes to exploding nutritional myths and combating anti-science dribble, she's ruthless. Through nearly 700 episodes, Reinagel has never strayed from pursuing truth in the area of nutrition. She leaves no study unturned and is often the enemy of confirmation bias and oversimplification. 

In the September 20th episode, Reinagel responds to a comment from a listener about sweetened breakfast cereals. In The Nutrition Diva podcast episode transcript, Reinagel begins this way: "Some beliefs just seem so obvious that it doesn’t occur to us to check whether the evidence supports our beliefs. We just assume that it does. Perhaps that’s what we mean when we say something is self-evident: It requires no corroboration. Furthermore, if we go looking for evidence to support something we already believe to be true, we can easily misinterpret the evidence we find in order to make it line up with our assumptions."

That's Reinagel at her best. She has too much respect for her listeners to allow them to be seduced by social media nonsense, conveniently crafted theories, and conjecture disguised as fact.

Reinagel continues: "This conversation was triggered by an episode I did recently on fortified foods and the role they play in meeting our nutritional needs. Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals are among the most aggressively fortified foods. And in my previous episode, I cited some data showing that fortified cereals (including sweetened ones) play an important role in meeting the nutritional needs of millions of children."

What Reinagel revealed in a previous episode was that people who eat ready-to-eat cereal have higher intakes of several key nutrients (due in part to fortification) and are more likely to meet nutrient recommendations than non-cereal eaters. The positive impact of cereal on overall nutrition is even more pronounced in children from lower-income households.

In fact, a 2013 randomized controlled trial Reinagel cites in the episode, children who frequently consumed ready-to-eat cereals "had significantly lower BMI over a 3-year period." They also had greater intakes of essential nutrients.

The study Reinagel reference focused on lower-income kids, but a 14-year prospective study of 367,442 individuals in the broader population also found that "consumption of ready-to-eat cereal was associated with reduced risk of…mortality from specific diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and cancer."

Reinagel concludes that, "These data do not support the hypothesis that the consumption of sweetened breakfast cereals contributes to childhood obesity or an increased risk of obesity and Type 2 diabetes later in life." 

Reinagel acknowledges that whether TV marketing to children should be better regulated is an entirely different question.

Reinagel, not content to demolish one myth, then moves on to another sacred nutritional truth: Sweetened breakfast cereals are contributing too much sugar to kids’ diets.

Reinagel begins with, "But that’s not where most of the sugar in kids’ diets is coming from. Sweetened beverages are the number one source of added sugar in the American diet, followed by desserts, sweet snacks, candy and actual table sugar. Cereal and bars (together) account for only seven percent of the added sugar in the typical diet… the same percentage as comes from sandwiches."

Why is limiting added sugar important?

Most people assume that it is because sugar, Reinagel says, uniquely promotes obesity and Type 2 diabetes. 

Then Reinagel supports truth over fiction with this statement. "It’s another one of those things that might just seem obvious or self-evident. But the reality is a little more complex. An analysis of the data from the Women’s Health Study, which involves almost 40,000 women, found no correlation between sugar intake and Type 2 diabetes risk."

Reinagel, ever the fact finder, admits that sugar intake does appear to be correlated with an increased risk of obesity. 

Then, she injects logic into the argument by stating: "But even there, it’s not quite as cut-and-dried as it might seem. If you control for total calorie intake, that link fades. Sugar intake is linked to weight gain, mostly because people who are eating a lot of sugar also tend to be taking in too many calories. If you reduce your sugar intake but not calories, it’s not going to solve the problem. (Added sugar consumption in Australia, for example, has gone way down in recent years, while obesity rates have continued to climb.)"

Finally, Reinagel decides to interject her personal opinion into the discussion: "To be honest, I find it a bit awkward to be in the position of defending foods that I myself don’t eat very often and would not regularly feed to my children (if I had any). When I eat sweetened cereals, I consider them more of a dessert. And I personally do not care to start my day with dessert. If I’m eating cereal for breakfast, I choose a low- or no-sugar option."

She ends with a recommendation that makes nutritional sense: "I still think that reducing added sugar intake (from all foods) to no more than 10% of calories is a great goal. If you can get it down to 5% of calories, even better. Why? Because it gives you more calories to spend on foods that help fulfill your nutritional needs—without exceeding your calorie budget.

You can listen to the episode here. 

 I think discussing Monica Reinagel and The Nutrition Diva podcast is important for two reasons. First, because like a dedicated believer in data and facts, Reinagel is not afraid to question conventional wisdom. I'm sure she's received pushback from that episode. It takes courage to, in effect, say, "I know, my dear listeners, you think this is true, but actually it may not be the whole truth."

Listeners hate ambiguity. F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote: “The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

Second, Reinagel doesn't pander to her podcasting audience. So many political podcasts simply pander to their listener's beliefs because they know people listen to have their beliefs validated. 

The 2020 election was stolen. Sure. They say that in every episode, and downloads go up. Examples abound. Truth doesn’t matter. Just the number of downloads.

Finally, if you want to listen to a podcast where a host provides you with nutritional information that is data dense, carefully evaluated for logic flaws, and scrutinized for accuracy, listen to The Nutrition Diva. 

If you're listening, Monica Reinagel, I'd like to interview you for this podcast publication. Are you up for it?

First question: What’s your favorite breakfast cereal?