Muesli often looks healthy because of all the grains and fruit, but you may be kidding yourself about its nutritional value, especially if you’re paying for a premium variety. Choice tested 159 varieties of muesli and discovered that bargain-basement brands offer just as much nutritional value as some of their pricier counterparts.
The site offers summaries of options if you want a lower-fat, lower-sugar or higher-fibre choice, but if you’re after a generally well-balanced choice, the bargain Home Brand, Coles and Black & Gold options are just as good a choice. Home Brand muesli was my breakfast of choice back when I did Mastercheap, and I’ve stuck with it ever since, so it’s good to be reassured that it’s not a nutritional disaster.
Pricey brands can also have interesting secrets: Choice notes that boutique brand The Muesli has 37% fat content, which is more than a Quarter Pounder, though it’s healthier unsaturated fat so the comparison isn’t entirely relevant. Hit the full review for much more on choosing the right muesli for you.
EckyThump
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 9:50 AMThere’s a lot of these home brand items,… Oats, Rice, Salt, Sugar etc, that are going to be cheaper and not be any different to the name brands,… However! when they produce home brand items, they are under cutting their own suppliers! It’s been mentioned before I know, but I really think this sort of nonsense should be nipped in the bud before the named suppliers can no longer compete, and either die off or start to produce crap. When the big brands have reduced their suppliers to rubbish, then where will they get their supplies? It’s all about the stock holders man, nothing else matters! #[
Hiro
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 10:51 AMI agree withe EckyThump.
In general businesses are there to make money ! (Surprise)
Even when it “looks” like they are doing something good, always be cautious.
They are very good at dangling the carrot to make you run.
Lauren
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 11:17 AMI find it odd that people complain about home brands undercutting the competition for manufacturers of the same product, getting upset that the competition will be wiped out.
Then they state that companies who cry poor because they have brick and mortar stores should price more competitively to beat out online competiton.
Why not apply the logic of the latter to the issue of the former?
Why shouldn’t Carman’s price more competitively to undercut the Coles home brand museli, or reconfigure their business model to reach their customer base outside of the supermarkets who dictate the pricing on the consumer’s end?
EckyThump
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 11:31 AMYeah,.. I don’t think your taking into consideration the choke-hold grip the big two have on the market! Smaller brands are fighting to stay afloat because they can’t compete with Woollies and Coles pricing model! #}
Ads
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 11:50 AMIt’s not the competion that i care about, it’s the farmer. The big 2 run at a loss, or force farmers to sell produce for less in order for the big 2 to cut out competition.
Mr Biggles
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 12:30 PMI know someone who used to complain that the home brand sugar doesn’t dissolve in a cup of tea as well as the more expensive brands…
Go figure…!!??