Anyone know the calories?

Mofee1

I know this will sound odd like an odd thing to do... I have a box of Kelloggs Raisin Bran cereal. The calorie count is 190 for 1 cup of dry cereal (no milk added). I don't want to eat the raisins, I just want the flakes. How would I figure out the true calories of just 1 cup of these flakes without raisins? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance!

moonangel12

My best guess would be to measure/weigh it out, then pick out the raisins and calculate the calories for them and subtract?

Mofee1

I thought about that too, moonangel12. I'm glad you suggested that too.

BarbaraHelen2013

Or just weigh the flakes and log as ‘Bran Flakes’. Can’t see why that’d be wrong if you’re picking out the Raisins🤷‍♀️

wilson10102018

What a question. Raisin Bran with or without the so called raisins has 250 calories per cup. All Bran has 120 calories per cup. the calories come from the enormous amounts of sugar in Raisin Bran not from a couple of little dried up raisin imposters.

Mofee1

Thanks for your responses!
So...Kelloggs Raisin Bran is 190 cals per cup (with raisins). Generic Bran Flakes are 150 cals per cup according to a myfitnesspal database search. I measured out a cup of the Kelloggs raisin bran three times, separated out and weighed the raisins in grams for each. Not surprisingly I got three different weights for the raisins. 17 grams (51 cals), 23 grams (69 cals), and 32 grams (96 cals). The way I see it, I have three options: Option 1 is to average out the raisin calories between the three readings which comes to 72 raisin calories and subtract that from the 190 calories for a 1 cup serving (sans raisins, of course), Option 2: weigh the raisins each time I measure out a cup of raisin bran and subtract those exact calories. And, finally, Option 3: Buy justBran Flakes cereal from now on. Since I am a control freak, I will likely go with Option 2 until I have consumed all three of my boxes of Kelloggs Raisin Bran, then switch to Bran Flakes or a different bran cereal that has waaaaay more fiber in it, like Trader Joes brand bran cereal (they look like pellets, LOL). I mean, why eat bran cereal unless your goal is fiber, right?

What DID surprise me was to discover that the Raisin Bran flakes have no discernible sugar taste to them. The raisins, however, are completely coated in sugar!

wilson10102018

Almost everything in the MFP database is wrong. And those nasty little things they call raisins in the product have no reliable calorie data. I mistakenly posted 250 instead of 190 above but the real difference is still sugar added to the product.

DeterminedDivaMN

Could you return the two boxes that you haven’t opened? That’s what I would do. (Or even donate the other two boxes.) The way my brain is wired, I’d either have to dig out all the raisins for all three boxes at once OR I’d return/donate the extra boxes. Otherwise I’d be reminded all the time that I bought the wrong cereal. (But stuff like that bugs ME.) 🙂

Mofee1 wrote: »

Thanks for your responses!
So...Kelloggs Raisin Bran is 190 cals per cup (with raisins). Generic Bran Flakes are 150 cals per cup according to a myfitnesspal database search. I measured out a cup of the Kelloggs raisin bran three times, separated out and weighed the raisins in grams for each. Not surprisingly I got three different weights for the raisins. 17 grams (51 cals), 23 grams (69 cals), and 32 grams (96 cals). The way I see it, I have three options: Option 1 is to average out the raisin calories between the three readings which comes to 72 raisin calories and subtract that from the 190 calories for a 1 cup serving (sans raisins, of course), Option 2: weigh the raisins each time I measure out a cup of raisin bran and subtract those exact calories. And, finally, Option 3: Buy justBran Flakes cereal from now on. Since I am a control freak, I will likely go with Option 2 until I have consumed all three of my boxes of Kelloggs Raisin Bran, then switch to Bran Flakes or a different bran cereal that has waaaaay more fiber in it, like Trader Joes brand bran cereal (they look like pellets, LOL). I mean, why eat bran cereal unless your goal is fiber, right?

What DID surprise me was to discover that the Raisin Bran flakes have no discernible sugar taste to them. The raisins, however, are completely coated in sugar!

AnnPT77

Mofee1 wrote: »

Thanks for your responses!
So...Kelloggs Raisin Bran is 190 cals per cup (with raisins). Generic Bran Flakes are 150 cals per cup according to a myfitnesspal database search. I measured out a cup of the Kelloggs raisin bran three times, separated out and weighed the raisins in grams for each. Not surprisingly I got three different weights for the raisins. 17 grams (51 cals), 23 grams (69 cals), and 32 grams (96 cals). The way I see it, I have three options: Option 1 is to average out the raisin calories between the three readings which comes to 72 raisin calories and subtract that from the 190 calories for a 1 cup serving (sans raisins, of course), Option 2: weigh the raisins each time I measure out a cup of raisin bran and subtract those exact calories. And, finally, Option 3: Buy justBran Flakes cereal from now on. Since I am a control freak, I will likely go with Option 2 until I have consumed all three of my boxes of Kelloggs Raisin Bran, then switch to Bran Flakes or a different bran cereal that has waaaaay more fiber in it, like Trader Joes brand bran cereal (they look like pellets, LOL). I mean, why eat bran cereal unless your goal is fiber, right?

What DID surprise me was to discover that the Raisin Bran flakes have no discernible sugar taste to them. The raisins, however, are completely coated in sugar!

I hear what you're saying about being a control freak, so this may be beside the point, but, just as a matter of perspective . . .

Let's say you eat a cereal serving every single day. Then, let's assume that in reality all of your samples had less than the average weight of raisins, and there are really 100 calories of raisins on average. Next, let's assume you were going to use the average number from your sample, 72 calories, to estimate your cereal calories (I know you don't plan to do that). That would be 72 calories of raisins logged, and 100 consumed. So, you would have wiped out 28 calories of your daily calorie deficit, *if* you did it that way.

I don't know how fast you're trying to lose weight, but for the sake of discussion, I'll assume it's 1 pound a week, which is a common goal, sensible for many people. That means that MFP will have given you a 500 calorie daily deficit, if it could do that without putting you below 1200, the minimum it will assign a woman.

In this imaginary scenario, your theoretical daily deficit would be 472 calories daily, instead of 500.

If all these estimates and your other logging was perfect (very unlikely in totality), what would this mean? It would mean that by the end of the week, you theoretically would lose 0.944 pound, rather than a whole pound, so you'd lose 0.056 pounds per week more slowly. It would take well over 4 months for there to be a whole pound difference in total weight loss.

Now, in reality, you're planning to do something that will be more time-consuming, but more accurate than the above scenario. The above is probably more inaccurate than any of your actual options (because I assumed all of your raisin samples were smaller than the average number of raisins in a serving, which is improbable).

Here's the question: How much futzing around with raisin separating is that kind of difference worth to you? That's a very personal, individual-preference question, one that doesn't have an objectively right answer (and I'm not asking you to post an answer).

Accuracy is indeed helpful if you're calorie counting, so it's good to be careful. (I've been counting calories through nearly a year of weight loss, and 5+ years since of maintenance). But it's a bad thing, IMO, to be literally *obsessed* by calorie counting accuracy, a thing that can happen for some people. The difference between obsessive and careful lies in the mental state of the individual whose behavior is taking place. You're the one who know how this thought process *feels*, and I wouldn't second guess where this falls for you. Still, if you're going to be counting for a while - losing a meaningful amount of weight takes time, realistically - it's the kind of question you might want to ask yourself, IMO.

Wishing you success!

lynn_glenmont

I would just weigh the flakes after picking out the raisins and use an entry for a raisinless whole grain bran flake cereal, like Post Bran Flakes (not Post All Bran Flakes, because Raisin Bran is not all bran) or General Mills' Total Whole Grain Flakes. Or, if all you care about is the calorie count (and not the protein or fiber counts, etc.), you could probably just go on using the entry for the Raisin Bran because the calorie density per gram with or without the raisins is pretty similar.

lesdarts180

If you are really that worried about exact calorie counts you need to stop measuring in "cups" and weigh your food properly in grams. I don't understand how cups work at all, but then I'm not American, I weigh all my food.

wilson10102018

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

I would just weigh the flakes after picking out the raisins and use an entry for a raisinless whole grain bran flake cereal, like Post Bran Flakes (not Post All Bran Flakes, because Raisin Bran is not all bran) or General Mills' Total Whole Grain Flakes. Or, if all you care about is the calorie count (and not the protein or fiber counts, etc.), you could probably just go on using the entry for the Raisin Bran because the calorie density per gram with or without the raisins is pretty similar.

Look at the ingredients on the two.

goal06082021

I'd just log it as if I'd eaten the raisins and err on the side of overestimating rather than overeating.

Or get rid of the Raisin Bran and eat something that doesn't taste like wet cardboard for breakfast.

gothchiq

I would remove the raisins and then log it as just bran flakes.

whoami67

I'm curious...why did you buy raisin bran if you don't like raisins?

SuzySunshine99

lesdarts180 wrote: »

If you are really that worried about exact calorie counts you need to stop measuring in "cups" and weigh your food properly in grams. I don't understand how cups work at all, but then I'm not American, I weigh all my food.

A cup is an actual, standardized unit of measurement, equal to 237 ml for liquids. I get the feeling sometimes that people outside of the U.S. think it's just any old cup from your cupboard. It's not...measuring cups are very accurate for liquids and reasonably accurate for densely packed solids like sugar or flour.

You are right that any unit of volume is not at all accurate for loosely packed solids like cereal. Weighing items like these is a much better policy.

wilson10102018

Liquid density, surface tension and eyeballing are the biggest reasons not to use "cup" as any form of reliable measurement. No one involved in science in the US would ever use the term "cup" as a unit of measurement. If something is 237 ML, say so. It won't help, however, because density of liquids varies and only the grams of weight are relevant to nutrition.

SuzySunshine99

Nearly every U.S. recipe uses volume measurements for ingredient lists. Cups, teaspoons, tablespoons. So, like it or not, no one who owns cookbooks or searches for recipes on U.S.-based websites is going to throw away their measuring cups or spoons.

wilson10102018

Cups and tablespoons are an impediment to sensible cooking.

neanderthin

Yes I agree with you. I'd like to know how they know everyone will measure out equal parts raisin and bran in every cup that's used.....they're so smart. j/k

wilson10102018

It mostly is a minor problem until you get to baking where being 10% off can actually affect the result. Measuring spoons come in all shapes and getting a level tablespoon of a sticky or lumpy substance is difficult using any spoon and impossible in shallow spoons.

The whole thing is just a mess. Weight is all that matters anyway.