Lamb, New Zealand, imported, Intermuscular fat, raw vs Quinoa, cooked
Nutrition comparison per 100g
🏆
Lamb, New Zealand, imported, Intermuscular fat, raw
2 wins
🏆
Quinoa, cooked
8 wins
| Nutrient | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, Intermuscular fat, raw | Quinoa, cooked | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 640 kcal | 120 kcal ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, Intermuscular fat, raw has 433% more |
| Protein | 4.63 g ★ | 4.4 g | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, Intermuscular fat, raw has 5% more |
| Carbs | 1.26 g | 21.3 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 94% more |
| Fat | 68.53 g | 1.92 g ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, Intermuscular fat, raw has 3469% more |
| Fiber | 0 g | 2.8 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sugar | 0 g ★ | 0.87 g | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sodium | 34 mg | 7 mg ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, Intermuscular fat, raw has 386% more |
| Calcium | 5 mg | 17 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 71% more |
| Iron | 0.72 mg | 1.49 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 52% more |
| Potassium | 119 mg | 172 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 31% more |
Compare Food Groups
Compare whole food groups for a cleaner, averaged breakdown.