Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw vs Quinoa, cooked
Nutrition comparison per 100g
🏆
Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw
1 wins
🏆
Quinoa, cooked
9 wins
| Nutrient | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw | Quinoa, cooked | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 703 kcal | 120 kcal ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw has 486% more |
| Protein | 3.87 g | 4.4 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 12% more |
| Carbs | 0.55 g | 21.3 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 97% more |
| Fat | 76.16 g | 1.92 g ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw has 3867% more |
| Fiber | 0 g | 2.8 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sugar | 0 g ★ | 0.87 g | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sodium | 28 mg | 7 mg ★ | Lamb, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw has 300% more |
| Calcium | 3 mg | 17 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 82% more |
| Iron | 0.47 mg | 1.49 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 68% more |
| Potassium | 93 mg | 172 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 46% more |
Compare Food Groups
Compare whole food groups for a cleaner, averaged breakdown.