I've just had a bowl of corn flakes, fancied a little something for my supper. I don't usually buy corn flakes but I thought a change would be nice, my usual cereal is bran flakes. The boxes look almost identical except for a different colour. I used to eat a lot of corn flakes when I was little, the posh ones with a big K on the front. I can't remember them making fake ones like they do now, they were the real deal.
I'm trying to work out which is the best value for money, and the best for your body in terms of nutritional value. The bran flakes are 88p for 750grm and corn flakes are 31p for 500grm. There are more calories in the corn flakes, and more sugar and salt. There is more fat in the bran flakes and more saturates. The ingredients in both are almost identical, except one has maize in it and the other has wholewheat and wheat bran.
Now comes the tricky bit, working out which has the better nutritional value. They both have the same added vitamins and minerals, that's easy enough. The bran flakes have more protien, less carbohydrates, less calories, more sugar, more fat, more fibre, and less salt. So now I'm baffled. I think I'm going to go with my preferred taste. Corn flakes taste like cardboard, they are tasteless. Bran flakes taste much better. Both boxes are the same size but you get less corn flakes because they are made very thin and crispy, there is more air in the box.
One thing I never do is buy fancy and expensive cereals, they are a big rip off. I am not a snob, I don't need to buy brand names. The bog standard basic flakes does me just fine. I don't want my cereals coated with sugar, or chocolate flavour, or snap crackle and pop, or clusters, or mixed with dried fruit, or puffed up.
I think I'm going to have to stick with bran flakes whether they are better for me or not. The price suits me, and for a supermarket own brand they taste quite nice. Are you ditching the brand names in favour of value. Toodle pip.