Scientists have compiled a ranking of the healthiest grain crops using new nutritional value indicators

Nutrients published a large analysis of the American nutrition monitoring NHANES 2017-2023 (14,720 participants aged 6 years and older), where the authors tried to honestly answer two simple questions: which grain products are considered “healthy” and what does their real consumption give. The researchers compared 2-day 24-hour food memories with two independent “quality scales” of grains and checked the links with the quality of the entire diet (HEI-2020, NRF), anthropometry and biomarkers (insulin, lipids). The result is that the more “healthy grains” on the plate, the higher the quality of the diet and the lower the prevalence of obesity; in adults, lower fasting insulin levels were recorded. The work is based on fresh NHANES cycles and carefully emphasizes: these are cross-sections, not causality, but the signals are stable and dose-dependent.

Background of the study

Grains are a foundation of the Western diet: in the US and Europe, they provide a significant share of daily energy, fibre, folate, iron and B vitamins. But “grains” are not the same thing: Whole grains (oatmeal, brown rice, bulgur, whole-grain bread/tortillas) are consistently associated with better cardiometabolic outcomes, while sweet pastries and desserts made from refined flours contribute more added sugar, saturated fat and sodium. American guidelines have repeated the simple rule for years: at least half of grain servings should be whole grains. But this balance is not always maintained on the plate, and there is controversy over the “healthiness” of cereals and fortified foods.

Scientifically, such disputes come down to metrics. Some researchers evaluate nutrition “top down” - by integral indices of diet quality (for example, HEI-2020: more whole grains and fruits, less added sugar and sodium - higher score). Others suggest evaluating products “bottom up” - by nutritional value profiles: how much fiber, vitamins and minerals are in a particular product per 100 kcal, and how many “minuses” (sugar, sodium, saturated fats) are there. At the intersection of these approaches, carbohydrate product profilers (like CFQS) and “nutritional density” indices (NRF) appeared: they help distinguish whole grain cereals and fortified cereals from muffins and donuts with the same word “grain” on the package. This is especially important for cereals, where the degree of processing and the composition of additives radically change the profile.

The social context is no less important. Some consider “healthy grains” expensive and unaffordable, while others point to the role of fortification: in the US, many cereals and breads are important sources of folate, iron, and B vitamins for children and the elderly. This raises the question of fairness: which grains actually improve the overall “score” of the diet and metabolic markers – and do they require large expenditures from the family budget? The answer to this question should logically be sought not in small samples, but in representative national nutrition surveys with laboratory biomarkers and price data.

Finally, a methodological caveat for any population-based grain study: NHANES relies on 24-hour food recall and a cross-sectional design. This is ideal for seeing patterns (who eats what, and how that relates to diet quality, obesity, or insulin), but not for proving causality. So it is the consistent signals that are of interest: when “healthy grains” are defined by different scales, and the associations with better diet and metabolism are dose-dependent and repeatable across subgroups, this is a practical clue for guidelines and food access programs.

How "Healthy Cereals" Were Counted (Two Lines - One Idea)

To avoid arguing over “feelings,” the authors used two independent approaches to product profiling:

• CFQS-3 (Carbohydrate Food Quality Score) - looks at whole grains, fiber and added sugar (the more of the first two and less of the third - the better). A product with >2 points was considered "healthy".
• NRF9.3g (Nutrient Rich Food Index for grains) - a "balance" of 9 plus nutrients (protein, fiber, vitamins B1/B2/B3/E, folate, iron, magnesium) against 3 minus nutrients (added sugar, sodium, saturated fat). Products from the upper tertile of NRF9.3g were considered "healthy".

Both lines were applied to 1,244 grain products from the USDA FNDDS database, and then their share in the diet of each NHANES participant was calculated. In parallel, the authors pulled up prices from the USDA (Thrifty Food Plan) - to check whether the "healthy" versions would be trivially more expensive.

Who and what of the "grain" was in favor

As expected, the picture is not monochromatic:

• According to CFQS-3, whole grain cereals and porridges, as well as some unsweetened snacks (for example, whole grains), were most often considered “healthy”.
• For NRF9.3g, the top scorers were ready-to-eat cereals (RTE-cereals), porridges, breads/rolls/tortillas; crackers and cereal side dishes were in the middle; and sweet baked goods were at the bottom (89% - bottom tertile).

Social optics matter, too: Women, older adults, and higher-income groups tended to score higher on the "healthy cereal" category; non-Hispanic black participants scored the lowest. This speaks not only to taste, but also to availability and habits.

Top 15 Healthiest Grains According to New Nutritional Metrics

Below is a practical rating of grains and pseudo-grain crops, compiled according to the logic of two “new” indicators of usefulness density, which are now used in scientific works and guidelines on the quality of carbohydrate products:

• CFQS-3 (Carbohydrate Food Quality Score): More whole grains and fiber per unit of carbohydrate and less added sugar;
• NRF9.3g (Nutrient-Rich Food Index for grains): maximum protein, fiber, B vitamins, iron, magnesium with minimum sugar, sodium, saturated fat.

For a "fair" comparison, we mentally hold whole, unsweetened versions of the crops, calculate the nutritional value per 100 kcal (not "per 100 g"), and note the key strengths. In brackets, we list what exactly the crop scores high on the CFQS-3/NRF for.

1. Barley (whole, hulled) - leader in β-glucan and total fiber, lots of magnesium, B vitamins; consistently low GI. (CFQS: very high fiber; NRF: magnesium, thiamine, niacin).
2. Oats (steel/cut, unsweetened) - β-glucan, good protein, B1/B5, magnesium; powerful effect on lipids. (CFQS: fiber/carbohydrates; NRF: B vitamins, magnesium).
3. Rye (whole) - highest fiber per calorie, lignans, mineral profile; one of the lowest GI of grains. (CFQS: fiber; NRF: magnesium, iron).
4. Teff is very mineral dense: iron, calcium, protein and fiber; gluten-free. (NRF: iron/calcium/magnesium; CFQS: good fiber).
5. Buckwheat (pseudo grain) - magnesium, manganese, rutin/polyphenols, decent protein; gluten free. (NRF: minerals + phytonutrients; CFQS: fiber).
6. Quinoa (pseudo-grain) - "more complete" amino acid profile, folate, magnesium; good fiber. (NRF: protein + micronutrients; CFQS: normal fiber).
7. Amaranth (pseudo grain) - lysine-rich protein, calcium/magnesium/iron; gluten-free. (NRF: protein+minerals).
8. Bulgur (whole wheat, parboiled and cracked) - high in fiber, low GI, good B-profile. (CFQS: fiber; NRF: B vitamins).
9. Wild rice - higher in protein and fiber than regular rice, lots of manganese and antioxidants. (NRF: protein+micro; CFQS: fiber).
10. Sorghum - polyphenols, decent fiber and protein; gluten free. (NRF: antioxidants + minerals; CFQS: fiber).
11. Whole grain wheat (grain/berries, spelt) - classic "workhorse": fiber, B-vitamins, magnesium. (CFQS/NRF balanced).
12. Brown rice - moderate fiber, magnesium, phytonutrients in bran; monitor source for arsenic. (NRF: magnesium; CFQS: moderate).
13. Millet - gluten free, good minerals but higher GI, moderate fibre. (NRF: ok; CFQS: medium-low).
14. Whole corn/popcorn without oil and sugar - fiber + lutein/zeaxanthin; but refined cereals/semolina are poorer. (NRF: carotenoids; CFQS: ok for popcorn, low for polished cereals).
15. White rice (polished) - low in fiber and micronutrients; good for "clean energy" but scores low on both metrics. (CFQS/NRF: low).

How to Use Rating in Store (Quick Rules)

• Look at the ingredients: “100% whole grain”, no sugar or salt – this automatically raises CFQS-3 and NRF.
• Minimal processing: whole grains/cereals > crushed > flakes > "instant" sweet version.
• Finger on the label: ≥ 3-4 g fiber per 100 kcal (or ≈ 7-8 g/100 g dry product) is a good guide to a high CFQS-3.
• Fortification ≠ "chemistry": fortification with B-vitamins, iron in cereals/bread increases NRF if it is low in sugar/sodium.

It is important to remember

• The form and dish change the score: sweet “quick” oatmeal, cornflakes with sugar, salty porridges - sharply drop the CFQS/NRF; on the contrary, a mixture of whole grains with legumes and nuts raises the index.
• Medical caveats: For celiac disease/NHVCG, choose gluten-free grains (buckwheat, rice, quinoa, amaranth, teff, sorghum, millet). For CKD/anemia/iron metabolism disorders, pay attention to iron/phytic acid and processing (soaking, fermentation).

What did the links with diet quality show?

Consumers of “healthy grains” had a higher overall HEI-2020 and better subscales: more whole grains and fruits, less added sugar, saturated fats, and refined grains. Moreover, the more of these products in the diet (by consumption tertiles), the higher the total HEI-2020 scores - a classic dose-response. The same “gradient” was noted for the NRF dietary index: more protein and fiber, more iron/calcium/potassium/magnesium, less sugar/sodium/saturated fat.

Metabolism and Weight: Notable Differences

In clinical indicators in adults, two stable signals were observed:

• Obesity was less common among those who ate “healthy cereals”: for example, according to CFQS-3, the proportion of obesity was 34.6% among consumers versus 41.1% among non-consumers; a similar difference was found when determined by NRF9.3g (36.2% versus 41.9%).
• Fasting insulin was lower in the “healthy cereal” consumers (the text gives a benchmark of 13.97 vs. 15.90 mIU/L, p<0.001). Waist circumference and total cholesterol did not differ significantly between groups, and HDL was slightly higher in the “healthy” CFQS-3 definition.

Important: These are associations found in cross-sectional NHANES data. They do not prove that “good grains” causally reduce obesity risk or improve insulin. But the consistent signal on two independent scales and the dose-response relationship make the picture compelling and practical.

Money: "healthier" does not mean "more expensive"

In the USDA price cross-section, more “nutritious” grains (upper tertile NRF9.3g) were cheaper per 100 g and per 100 kcal than the lower tertile (e.g. $0.71/100 g in T3 versus $1.03/100 g in T1; per 100 kcal - $0.24 in T3 versus $0.28-0.29 in T1-T2; p≈0.002). That is, you can “assemble” a diet with good grains without a premium for usefulness.

"Ultra-processed" vs. "healthy": how to avoid confusion

The authors point out that the “ultra-processed” debate need not conflict with nutritional assessment. Many whole grain breads and fortified cereals qualify as UPFs under NOVA, yet provide B vitamins, folate, iron, magnesium, and improve total nutritional indices. Their approach simply bypasses the debate and focuses on nutrients and ingredients (whole grains, fiber, low sugar/sodium/saturated fat).

Restrictions

• NHANES is a 24-hour self-report of dietary intake (risk of under/overestimation).
• The definition of "whole grain" was dependent on the USDA FPED database; food profilers are models, not the "ultimate authority."
• The design is cross-sectional, so we can only talk about associations; there remains a chance of residual mixing (physical activity, self-control, other habits).

What does this mean for your plate and shopping list?

• Take the “core” from whole grains: oatmeal/porridge, bulgur, brown rice, buckwheat, whole grain breads/tortillas.
• Breakfast Cereals ≠ Sugar Cereals: Look for fortified RTE cereals with a high NRF (more fiber/vitamins, less sugar/sodium/saturated fat).
• Sweet baked goods are in the “minus tercile”: their contribution to the quality of the diet is consistently negative.
• Price is not a barrier: more nutritious grains are on average no more expensive, and sometimes cheaper, than alternatives.

Conclusion

If you want "maximum benefit per calorie", bet more on barley, oats, rye, teff, buckwheat/quinoa/amaranth and bulgur. Brown rice, millet, sorghum, wild rice are a solid middle ground. White rice and refined corn grits are more about neutral calories, they are "pulled up" only by vegetables/legumes/protein in the plate.

Source: Drewnowski A., Gazan R., Maillot M. Healthy Grains in Healthy Diets: The Contribution of Grain Foods to Diet Quality and Health in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-2023. Nutrients 2025;17(16):2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17162674