Havervlokken Fibre Fit vs ISOSTAR poeder sinaas
Overall, Havervlokken Fibre Fit has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Havervlokken Fibre Fit | ISOSTAR poeder sinaas |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | — |
| NOVA group | 1 | 4 |
| Calories | 367 kcal | 373 kcal |
| Fat | 6.7 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.3 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 6 g | 70 g |
| Salt | 1 g | — |
| Fiber | 10.9 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 11.8 g | 2.8 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- ISOSTAR poeder sinaas has no fat, while Havervlokken Fibre Fit has 6.7 g.
- ISOSTAR poeder sinaas has no saturated fat, while Havervlokken Fibre Fit has 1.3 g.
- Havervlokken Fibre Fit has 91% less sugar (6 g vs 70 g).
- Havervlokken Fibre Fit has 100% more fiber (10.9 g vs 0 g).
- Havervlokken Fibre Fit has 76% more protein (11.8 g vs 2.8 g).
- Havervlokken Fibre Fit is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Havervlokken Fibre Fit
Flocons d'avoine
ISOSTAR poeder sinaas
Eau, Saccharose, Sirop de glucose, Acidifiant : acide citrique, Maltodextrine, Arôme naturel d’orange avec autres arômes naturels, Citrate de sodium, Sels de calcium de l'acide orthophosphorique, Carbonate de magnésium, Chlorure de sodium, exhausteur de goût : Chlorure de potassium, Stabilisants : E414 et E445, Antioxydant : E307, Vitamine B1.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Havervlokken Fibre Fit or ISOSTAR poeder sinaas?
Overall, Havervlokken Fibre Fit has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. We compare Nutri-Score, processing level and seven nutrients per 100 g. Your own needs (for example low sugar or high protein) may make a different choice better for you.
Which has fewer calories?
Havervlokken Fibre Fit has fewer calories: 367 kcal versus 373 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Havervlokken Fibre Fit has less sugar: 6 g versus 70 g per 100 g.