Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, cooked vs Quinoa, cooked
Nutrition comparison per 100g
🏆
Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, cooked
2 wins
🏆
Quinoa, cooked
8 wins
| Nutrient | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, cooked | Quinoa, cooked | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 674 kcal | 120 kcal ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, cooked has 462% more |
| Protein | 5.24 g ★ | 4.4 g | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, cooked has 19% more |
| Carbs | 0.62 g | 21.3 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 97% more |
| Fat | 72.28 g | 1.92 g ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, cooked has 3665% more |
| Fiber | 0 g | 2.8 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sugar | 0 g ★ | 0.87 g | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sodium | 43 mg | 7 mg ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, cooked has 514% more |
| Calcium | 6 mg | 17 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 65% more |
| Iron | 0.7 mg | 1.49 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 53% more |
| Potassium | 164 mg | 172 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 5% more |
Compare Food Groups
Compare whole food groups for a cleaner, averaged breakdown.