Rôti de porc aux herbes vs Lomo
Overall, Rôti de porc aux herbes has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Rôti de porc aux herbes | Lomo |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 126 kcal | 199 kcal |
| Fat | 4 g | 5 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.6 g | 1.9 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 1.9 g | 3 g |
| Protein | 22 g | 38 g |
| Additives | 3 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Rôti de porc aux herbes has 37% fewer calories (126 kcal vs 199 kcal).
- Rôti de porc aux herbes has 20% less fat (4 g vs 5 g).
- Rôti de porc aux herbes has 37% less salt (1.9 g vs 3 g).
- Lomo has 42% more protein (38 g vs 22 g).
Ingredients
Rôti de porc aux herbes
4 tranches de rôti cuit, bruni, qualité supérieure aux herbes de Provence, traité en salaison, Ingrédients: 90% filet de porc (Origine: France), eau, sel, arômes naturels, dextrose, bouillon de porc déshydraté (eau, os, viande de porc, extrait de carotte, extrait de poireau), 0,2% épices, 0,1% herbes de Provence (romarin, thym, basilic, marjolaine, origan), sirop de glucose, conservateurs: chlorure de potassium, nitrite de sodium, antioxydant: ascorbate de sodium, colorant: caramel ordinaire, Non ouvert à concomi
Lomo
Lomo de cerdo, sal, pimentones, dextrosa, ajo, antioxidantes (E-331, E-301), aromas y conservadores (E-250 E-252)
FAQ
Which is healthier: Rôti de porc aux herbes or Lomo?
Overall, Rôti de porc aux herbes 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?
Rôti de porc aux herbes has fewer calories: 126 kcal versus 199 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Rôti de porc aux herbes has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.