Langues de chat vs Cigarettes 200g
Overall, Langues de chat has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Langues de chat | Cigarettes 200g |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 431 kcal | 526 kcal |
| Fat | 10 g | 27 g |
| Saturated fat | 5.1 g | 15 g |
| Sugars | 43 g | 37 g |
| Salt | 0.6 g | 0.4 g |
| Fiber | 1.8 g | 1.3 g |
| Protein | 5.3 g | 5.2 g |
| Additives | 3 | 1 |
| Allergens | Eggs, Gluten, Milk, Mustard, Nuts, Sesame seeds, Soybeans | Eggs, Gluten, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Langues de chat has 18% fewer calories (431 kcal vs 526 kcal).
- Langues de chat has 63% less fat (10 g vs 27 g).
- Langues de chat has 66% less saturated fat (5.1 g vs 15 g).
- Cigarettes 200g has 14% less sugar (37 g vs 43 g).
- Langues de chat has 28% more fiber (1.8 g vs 1.3 g).
- Only Langues de chat lists: Mustard, Nuts, Sesame seeds, Soybeans.
Ingredients
Langues de chat
Farine de blé 49%, sucre, huile de palme, lactose* et protéines de lait, sel, dextrose, arôme, blanc d'oeuf en poudre, poudres à lever : diphosphates et carbonates de sodium. * dont laitPeut contenir : fruits à coque, soja, graines de sésame et moutarde.
Cigarettes 200g
Sucre, farine de blé 35,8%, huiles et graisses végétales (palme, coprah, colza), blanc d'œuf, poudre de lait écrémé, sel, émulsifiants: mono - et diglycérides d'acides gras, arôme naturel.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Langues de chat or Cigarettes 200g?
Overall, Langues de chat 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?
Langues de chat has fewer calories: 431 kcal versus 526 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Cigarettes 200g has less sugar: 37 g versus 43 g per 100 g.