Diet Food Reviews
Kellogg's Cracklin' Oat Bran Cereal
Anything with the words "Oat Bran" in the title should be healthy, right?! That's why I reached for Kellogg's Cracklin' Oat Bran Cereal on a recent trip to the grocery store. One box cost $5.39 (!) but it was too interesting to pass up, and since I had heard about this cereal throughout college, I figured now was the time to try it. When I think of Oat Bran, I think of the ultimate in nutrition - low-calorie, high fiber, high protein.
Unfortunately, the nutrition facts of this cereal did not support what I had imagined. A 3/4 cup serving has 200 calories, 7 grams of total fat (11% of the daily value) including 3 grams of saturated fat (15% of the DV - likely due to the palm oil which is the 4th ingredient), as well as 15 grams of sugar. All is not lost, though - this cereal does offer 6 grams of fiber and 4 grams of protein in a single serving, as well as a variety of vitamins and minerals.
But, it sure tastes good! Brown sugar (the 3rd ingredient, right behind Whole oats and Wheat Bran) adds a pleasant sweetness without being overly saccharine, and cinnamon provides delicious spiciness. The cereal stays crunchy in milk, although you may not even get to that stage because it's so delicious by itself.
This cereal tastes fantastic, and the fiber definitely makes it filling. The nutrition is a trade-off: high calorie, fat, and sugar content vs. good protein, fiber, and vitamin stats. I probably won't be buying it again because it's it is so expensive, and so addictive. But if you can limit yourself to a small portion, it's worth a try.
Fortunately, we have reviews of many lower calorie cereals that you can enjoy.
8 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Reviews
What We're Cooking
Saving on Healthy Foods
Top 20 Tags
Recent Comments

I remember when that cereal first came out, and my grandma went crazy eating it. She was then very confused as to why she'd gained a bunch of weight! I just with it wasn't so delicious.
You're confusing low cal with healthy; that's an all to common mistake. There is nothing wrong with the fat content(fat doesn't make something bad for you) you just need to realize the extra calories involved.
The only downside to this cereal for me is the cost.
Thank you so much-I hope you're right.
It's funny-so many people identify chocolate or candy as their weekness...CEREAL is that for me!!! I can eat bottomless bowls! So I know what you mean-I wouldn't be able to get it b/c I'd never stop at one!
Cereal - I'm very aware that healthy doesn't always mean low-calorie, but I feel that for a 3/4 cup serving of an all-too-addictive sugary cereal, 200 calories is too much to waste. I'd rather have have a lower-calorie high-fiber cereal that I can eat in larger, more satisfying portions.
You still referred to it is a nutritional trade off ,because of the fat and sugar. Implying that fat or sugar are somehow unhealthy which isn't true ,but is commonly believed.
I understand your reasoning ,but to me that's an opinion on how you choose to eat and shouldn't reflect somethings nutrition stat.
Lovin' the brown sugar, hating the calories. And that box screams "generic". What are the odds that this will be on sale when I shop tomorrow?
I wouldn't mind the fat or sugar if it came from a source like nuts or molasses rather than palm oil and corn syrup. I might shell out that kind of cash for a cereal like that; not one chock full of sweeteners and whatnot.
Wolf Goettin, why exactly would you prefer it coming from nuts(peanut or coconut oil I suppose), and molasses rather than palm oil and corn syrup? The products price is already too high as is ,and uses coconut as one of the main ingredients.So changing the recipe by adding more expensive ingredients would only further increase the price.
If your trying to argue that molasses is somehow more healthy than other sugars just stop now ,because you'll lose that argument badly, and replacing the palm oil with coconut oil would only increase the price since palm and coconut oil have highly similar compositions.