Jarret de porc aux lentilles vs Jarret de porc cuit
Overall, Jarret de porc cuit has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 2.
Jarret de porc aux lentilles
Jarret de porc cuit
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Jarret de porc aux lentilles | Jarret de porc cuit |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 239 kcal | 181 kcal |
| Fat | 25.1 g | 9.7 g |
| Saturated fat | 8.4 g | 3.3 g |
| Sugars | 0.9 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 12.3 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | 0.9 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 0.7 g | 23 g |
| Additives | 0 | 1 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Jarret de porc cuit has 24% fewer calories (181 kcal vs 239 kcal).
- Jarret de porc cuit has 61% less fat (9.7 g vs 25.1 g).
- Jarret de porc cuit has 60% less saturated fat (3.3 g vs 8.4 g).
- Jarret de porc cuit has 43% less sugar (0.5 g vs 0.9 g).
- Jarret de porc cuit has 88% less salt (1.5 g vs 12.3 g).
- Jarret de porc aux lentilles has 100% more fiber (0.9 g vs 0 g).
- Jarret de porc cuit has 97% more protein (23 g vs 0.7 g).
- Jarret de porc cuit has the better Nutri-Score.
- Jarret de porc aux lentilles is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Jarret de porc aux lentilles
eau, graisse de canard, sel, concentré de tomate, ail, poivre, jarret de port 37%, lentilles 18%
Jarret de porc cuit
Jarret avant de porc 95%, eau, sel, dextrose, conservateur : nitrite de sodium.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Jarret de porc aux lentilles or Jarret de porc cuit?
Overall, Jarret de porc cuit 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?
Jarret de porc cuit has fewer calories: 181 kcal versus 239 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Jarret de porc cuit has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.9 g per 100 g.