Rindersaftschinken vs Lomo embuchado
Overall, Rindersaftschinken 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 | Rindersaftschinken | Lomo embuchado |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 102 kcal | 199 kcal |
| Fat | 2 g | 5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.9 g | 1.9 g |
| Sugars | 1 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 2.1 g | 3 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 20 g | 38 g |
| Additives | 3 | 4 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Rindersaftschinken has 49% fewer calories (102 kcal vs 199 kcal).
- Rindersaftschinken has 60% less fat (2 g vs 5 g).
- Rindersaftschinken has 53% less saturated fat (0.9 g vs 1.9 g).
- Lomo embuchado has 50% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1 g).
- Rindersaftschinken has 30% less salt (2.1 g vs 3 g).
- Lomo embuchado has 47% more protein (38 g vs 20 g).
Ingredients
Rindersaftschinken
Rindfleisch, jodiertes Speisesalz (Speisesalz, Kaliumiodat), Dextrose, Gewürzextrakte, Antioxidationsmittel: Natriumascorbat; Stabilisator: Triphosphate; Konservierungsstoff: Natriumnitrit; Buchenholzrauch. Kann Spuren von Senf und Sellerie enthalten.
Lomo embuchado
Lomo de cerdo, sal, pimentones, dextrosa, ajo, antioxidantes (E-331, E-301), aromas y conservadores (E-250, E-252).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Rindersaftschinken or Lomo embuchado?
Overall, Rindersaftschinken 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?
Rindersaftschinken has fewer calories: 102 kcal versus 199 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Lomo embuchado has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1 g per 100 g.