Tripes mijotées à l'Ancienne et cuisinées à la fine champagne vs Tripes
Overall, Tripes has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 0.
Tripes mijotées à l'Ancienne et cuisinées à la fine champagne
Tripes
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Tripes mijotées à l'Ancienne... | Tripes |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | a |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 86 kcal | 84 kcal |
| Fat | 2.6 g | 1.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.2 g | 0.9 g |
| Sugars | 0.6 g | 0.1 g |
| Salt | 1.1 g | 1 g |
| Protein | 14.6 g | 16.5 g |
| Additives | 1 | 1 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Tripes has 27% less fat (1.9 g vs 2.6 g).
- Tripes has 83% less sugar (0.1 g vs 0.6 g).
- Tripes has 12% more protein (16.5 g vs 14.6 g).
- Tripes has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Tripes mijotées à l'Ancienne et cuisinées à la fine champagne
estomacs de boœuf (origine France), eau, oignons, carottes, sel, gélatine, extraits d'épices, Cognac fine champagne (0,2%).
Tripes
Retirer l'emballage. Réchauffer 5min (1000W). d 3 bœuf (panses bonnets, feuillets, caillettes), piûds de desossés carottes, gélatine de porc, sel, vinaigre arôme, légumes (oianons, tomates, ca!0ttes), Gtucides dontsucres Protéines Sel A consommer . 2xbooge Nô de lot
FAQ
Which is healthier: Tripes mijotées à l'Ancienne et cuisinées à la fine champagne or Tripes?
Overall, Tripes 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?
Tripes has fewer calories: 84 kcal versus 86 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Tripes has less sugar: 0.1 g versus 0.6 g per 100 g.