SPAM Classic vs Frühstücksfleisch
Overall, SPAM Classic 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 | SPAM Classic | Frühstücksfleisch |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 321 kcal | 286 kcal |
| Fat | 24.3 g | 26 g |
| Saturated fat | 9.7 g | 9.9 g |
| Sugars | 1.3 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 2.3 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 15 g | 13 g |
| Additives | 1 | 3 |
| Allergens | None listed | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Frühstücksfleisch has 11% fewer calories (286 kcal vs 321 kcal).
- Frühstücksfleisch has 62% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.3 g).
- SPAM Classic has 100% less salt (0 g vs 2.3 g).
- SPAM Classic has 13% more protein (15 g vs 13 g).
- SPAM Classic has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Frühstücksfleisch lists: Milk.
Ingredients
SPAM Classic
pork with ham, salt, water, modified potato starch, sugar, sodium nitrite
Frühstücksfleisch
Schweinefleisch 87%, Trinkwasser, Salz, Stabilisator: Triphosphate, _Molkepulver_, Gewürzextrakte, Antioxidationsmittel: Natriumascorbat, Konservierungsstoff: Natriumnitrit.
FAQ
Which is healthier: SPAM Classic or Frühstücksfleisch?
Overall, SPAM Classic 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?
Frühstücksfleisch has fewer calories: 286 kcal versus 321 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Frühstücksfleisch has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.3 g per 100 g.