Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked6
VS
Lard (pork fat)
Lard (pork fat)1

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 6–1 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Beef chuck roast, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, more potassium, more calcium, more iron and more magnesium.

Pick Lard (pork fat) for less sodium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    902 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    0 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    100 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN6.91 g
    39.2 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    48 mg
    0 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN235 mg
    0 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    0 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    0 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN19 mg
    0 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    0 mg
  • Vitamin Dmore is better
    —
    —

Winners are decided by deterministic per-metric rules on the stated basis; ties and missing data don’t score (missing ≠ zero). Educational information only — not medical advice.

Beef chuck roast, cooked vs Lard (pork fat) · Foodatron