Pommes de terre vs Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn
Overall, Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Pommes de terre
Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Pommes de terre | Pommes de terre coupees a l'... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | a |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 149 kcal | 132 kcal |
| Fat | 5.4 g | 3.3 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.7 g | 0.3 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0.3 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 8.8 g | 1.7 g |
| Protein | 2.4 g | 2.7 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn has 11% fewer calories (132 kcal vs 149 kcal).
- Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn has 39% less fat (3.3 g vs 5.4 g).
- Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn has 57% less saturated fat (0.3 g vs 0.7 g).
- Pommes de terre has no sugar, while Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn has 0.5 g.
- Pommes de terre has 81% more fiber (8.8 g vs 1.7 g).
- Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn has 11% more protein (2.7 g vs 2.4 g).
Ingredients
Pommes de terre
Flocons de pomme de terre réhydratés 84%, huile de tournesol, farine de riz, pomme de terre déshydratée, sel, stabilisant : hydroxypropylméthylcellulose, dextrose, épices.
Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn
Pommes de terre 96%, huile de colza 4%, dextrose.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Pommes de terre or Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn?
Overall, Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn 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?
Pommes de terre coupees a l'ancienn has fewer calories: 132 kcal versus 149 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pommes de terre has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.