Chili with meat: standard vs canned USDA FDC 2706377 vs 2706376
Per 100 g, standard reports 0.5 g dietary fiber, while canned reports 3.2 g dietary fiber.
The comparison uses two cited USDA records. Their complete source names, household portions, nutrient values, and FoodData Central links remain visible below.
Highlighted difference
Calories at the same 100-gram weight
Bar length shows the two cited values on one shared denominator. It does not rank either food or establish why they differ.
- Chili with meat 139 kcal
139 kcal - Chili with meat, canned 106 kcal
106 kcal
Shared basis: 100 g · kcal
Equal-weight evidence
Nutrition per 100 grams
Both columns use the same mass, which compares nutrient concentration without allowing the two representative source amounts to change the denominator. “A +” or “B +” reports the arithmetic difference between the cited values; it is not a quality score.
On smaller screens, focus a comparison table and scroll horizontally to read every column.
| Nutrient | A · Chili with meat | B · Chili with meat, canned | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaloriesMaterial difference | 139 kcal | 106 kcal | A +33 kcal |
| ProteinMaterial difference | 13.3 g | 8.5 g | A +4.8 g |
| Total fatMaterial difference | 8.2 g | 3.4 g | A +4.8 g |
| CarbohydrateMaterial difference | 2.4 g | 10.8 g | B +8.4 g |
| Dietary fiberMaterial difference | 0.5 g | 3.2 g | B +2.7 g |
| Total sugars | 1.4 g | 1.4 g | B +0.1 g |
| Sodium | 357 mg | 357 mg | Same reported value |
| Saturated fatMaterial difference | 3.2 g | 1.2 g | A +1.9 g |
| Potassium | 222 mg | 275 mg | B +53 mg |
| Calcium | 16 mg | 20 mg | B +4 mg |
| Iron | 1.5 mg | 1.8 mg | B +0.3 mg |
Values come from the two cited USDA FoodData Central Survey Foods records. Feast does not average records, impute missing values, or infer a nutrient from the food name.
Read the table by question
The material primary-nutrient differences run in both directions: A is higher on 3, while B is higher on 2.
These answers describe concentration per 100 grams. “More” and “less” identify the arithmetic direction only; they do not decide which record is a better match or which food is better for a person.
Which reports fewer calories?
Record B
Record B reports 106 kcal, compared with 139 kcal in the other record—a difference of 33 kcal.
Which reports more protein?
Record A
Record A reports 13.3 g, compared with 8.5 g in the other record—a difference of 4.8 g.
Which reports more fiber?
Record B
Record B reports 3.2 g, compared with 0.5 g in the other record—a difference of 2.7 g.
Which reports less sodium?
Same reported value
Both records report 357 mg of sodium per 100 g.
What differs in the source descriptions
The exact names carry information the numbers cannot.
USDA assigns both records to “Meat mixed dishes,” but the topic label is broad. Record A is “Chili with meat.” Record B is “Chili with meat, canned.” Feast paired them because their contrast-neutral food identities are an exact match, not merely because they share a generic category.
The controlled name parser found 1 interpretable distinction. These labels organize wording already present in the names; they do not establish that a distinction caused a nutrient difference.
| Description dimension | Record A | Record B |
|---|---|---|
| Source form | No matching controlled term in the source name | canned |
Even a clean name contrast can carry hidden companions. A fried record may also include coating; a restaurant record can use a different recipe; a reduced-sodium description can differ in more than salt; and a source amount can reflect a different reporting convention. That is why this page reports the complete pair rather than treating one word as an intervention.
Portion context
A representative source amount is not a shared “serving.”
Record A uses USDA reference amount at 255 g. Record B uses USDA reference amount at 255 g. Those labels and gram weights come from their respective records. They are useful for scaling the chosen profile, but they are not recommendations and need not describe equal amounts.
The representative amounts do not cross Feast’s material portion-difference threshold of both 15 grams and 20%. They are still separate source measures, so the 100-gram table remains the appropriate place for an equal-weight comparison.
A cup, piece, slice, sandwich, fillet, or fluid ounce can have different gram weights across records. A matching label is not enough: check the listed grams. If accuracy matters more than convenience, weighing the food or using a current package label can be more specific than a generic survey-food measure.
Record A measures
- 1 cup255 g
- USDA reference amount255 g
Record B measures
- 1 cup255 g
- 1 can440 g
- 1 individual container255 g
- USDA reference amount255 g
One shared household label
1 cup: 255 g in A vs 255 g in B
Here the household label and listed gram weight match at displayed precision, so this particular table is also an equal-mass comparison. The values remain specific to these two source records, not a universal weight for every 1 cup.
| Nutrient | A · 255 g | B · 255 g |
|---|---|---|
| Calories | 354 kcal | 270 kcal |
| Protein | 33.9 g | 21.7 g |
| Dietary fiber | 1.3 g | 8.2 g |
| Sodium | 910 mg | 910 mg |
USDA source formulation evidence
The listed inputs provide another way to audit the match.
FNDDS includes input-food rows behind each standardized survey-food record. Record A’s leading listed inputs include Beef as ingredient in recipes, Beverages, water, tap, drinking, Tomato products, canned, puree, without salt added, Green pepper, cooked, as ingredient. Record B’s include Beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, without salt, Beverages, water, tap, drinking, Beef as ingredient in recipes, Tomato products, canned, puree, without salt added. Ingredient-code overlap is 89%, and normalized listed-input-weight variation is 37%.
Record A · 8 coded inputs
Chili with meat
- Beef as ingredient in recipesIngredient code 99992100 · open source index49.1% of listed input weight
- Beverages, water, tap, drinkingIngredient code 14411 · open source index29.5% of listed input weight
- Tomato products, canned, puree, without salt addedIngredient code 11547 · open source index9.8% of listed input weight
- Green pepper, cooked, as ingredientIngredient code 99997520 · open source index4.9% of listed input weight
- Onions, cooked, as ingredientIngredient code 99997510 · open source index4.9% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.8% of listed input weight
- Spices, chili powderIngredient code 2009 · open source index0.5% of listed input weight
- Sugars, granulatedIngredient code 19335 · open source index0.5% of listed input weight
Record B · 9 coded inputs
Chili with meat, canned
- Beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, without saltIngredient code 16033 · open source index37.4% of listed input weight
- Beverages, water, tap, drinkingIngredient code 14411 · open source index23.4% of listed input weight
- Beef as ingredient in recipesIngredient code 99992100 · open source index18.7% of listed input weight
- Tomato products, canned, puree, without salt addedIngredient code 11547 · open source index9.4% of listed input weight
- Green pepper, cooked, as ingredientIngredient code 99997520 · open source index4.7% of listed input weight
- Onions, cooked, as ingredientIngredient code 99997510 · open source index4.7% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.8% of listed input weight
- Spices, chili powderIngredient code 2009 · open source index0.5% of listed input weight
8 shared coded inputs
The largest shared entries include Beef as ingredient in recipes, Beverages, water, tap, drinking, Tomato products, canned, puree, without salt added, Green pepper, cooked, as ingredient, Onions, cooked, as ingredient. Shared codes can still carry different listed weights.
0 A-only and 1 B-only coded inputs
B-only entries include Beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, without salt.
Important: repeated rows carrying the same ingredient code are combined before the shares and overlap are calculated. These weights belong to USDA’s source formulation: they are not a reconstructed plate, final cooked yield, visitor serving, ingredient declaration, or estimate of what is visible in a photo. USDA’s FNDDS documentation explains that these calculation recipes can represent multiple variants, may include retention or moisture adjustments, and are not product-label ingredient lists.
Choosing the closer record
Match context first; scale second.
- 01
Read both names literally
Compare cooking method, coating, edible skin or peel, sauce, additions, venue, source form, and food subtype. For this pair, the full A and B descriptions above are the evidence—not shortened search labels.
- 02
Use listed inputs as a check
If the name still leaves ambiguity, compare the leading and unique source inputs. They can reveal that two near names refer to meaningfully different standardized formulations, but they do not reconstruct your dish.
- 03
Choose an amount for that record
After choosing A or B, use its own named measure and gram weight. Do not transfer a cup, slice, or “typical amount” from the other record as if the measures were interchangeable.
- 04
Account for missing details
Brand, current restaurant recipe, cooking oil, drained weight, toppings, substitutions, and unfinished portions may not be captured. A label or weighed recipe can supersede a generic reference when it better matches the actual food.
Limits and responsible interpretation
This is a comparison of records, not a causal study.
The two records come from 2021–2023 FoodData Central Survey Foods data. The nutrient table faithfully compares their published values on the same weight basis. It does not measure two plates prepared at the same time, isolate one ingredient, or estimate the uncertainty around either value.
For this pair, the source names differ across 1 documented description dimension, while the listed formulations show 89% ingredient-code overlap and 37% normalized listed-weight variation. Moisture, ingredient proportions, preparation, and record construction can therefore move together. The page can describe the combined record difference; it cannot isolate the effect of one word.
A higher or lower number is not an overall verdict. Protein, fiber, sodium, energy, fat, micronutrients, preferences, allergies, budget, portion, and an individual’s goals answer different questions. Feast therefore reports directions and magnitudes without applying a universal “healthier” label.
This page is educational and does not diagnose a condition, prescribe a target, or replace advice from a qualified professional. For an allergy, medically directed diet, or strict ingredient limit, use verified ingredient information and guidance appropriate to that situation.
How this page qualified
A page is published only when the pair clears materiality and diversity gates.
Both records must occupy the same USDA survey-food topic and share a close food identity after a controlled vocabulary separates preparation, edible-part, source, claim, crust, and sauce wording. Exact contrast-neutral identities receive priority. Close ingredient or form substitutions can qualify when name overlap remains high and the numerical evidence is material.
For primary nutrients, Feast requires both an absolute and relative difference: at least 20 kcal and 12% for energy; 2 g and 18% for protein or fat; 5 g and 15% for carbohydrate; 1 g and 20% for fiber; 4 g and 20% for sugars; or 100 mg and 20% for sodium. A focused one-nutrient pair also needs a material representative-amount or formulation distinction. Rounding-only pairs are not published.
Unordered FDC IDs define a canonical pair, so reversing A and B cannot create another page. Each source record can appear twice at most, each USDA topic contributes no more than 40 pages, and closely repeated identity families are capped. Those rules produced a selective comparison library rather than every mathematical combination in the corpus.
Read the complete nutrition-page methodology for import, nutrient mapping, portion scaling, Daily Value, and uncertainty rules.
Decision support from the exact records on this page
Turn source data into a better next decision
These conclusions and reading paths are computed from 2 exact records behind Chili with meat versus Chili with meat, canned. Links are chosen by record identity, controlled contrast, formulation input, nutrient spread, or serving context—not by loose keyword similarity.
Equal-weight result
Chili with meat is higher in calories per 100 g
Chili with meat reports 139 kcal versus 106 kcal for Chili with meat, canned: a 33 kcal difference when both are normalized to 100 g.
Inspect the underlying evidenceThese listed servings have equal weights
2 listed servings each weigh 255 g
The 2 records with a listed serving weight on this page each use 255 g. Their serving totals therefore compare equal weights, even if the household labels differ. Match the preparation and adjust the weight to the amount you eat.
Record identity is part of the estimate
Distinguish “Chili with meat” from “Chili with meat, canned”
These are separate USDA records with separate formulations or survey descriptions. Match preparation, additions, and the named household amount before borrowing either record’s nutrients.
Inspect the underlying evidenceContextual knowledge graph
Follow the relationship that matches your question
For Chili with meat versus Chili with meat, canned, each path states why the destination belongs here, so you can distinguish a true evidentiary connection from a merely similar label.
Chili with meat and Chili with meat, canned are explicitly linked in this guide, which separates direct name matches from contextual variants.
Follow this evidence path Put the observed spread in corpus context Calories: density and serving contextIn this page’s records, calories runs from 106 kcal in Chili with meat, canned to 139 kcal in Chili with meat, all per 100 g.
Follow this evidence path Test a nearby record choice Chili with meat, canned vs Chili with meat, from restaurantChili with meat, canned is held as one side of the comparison. The explicit record-description contrast is Source form: canned versus No matching controlled term in the source name; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, without saltUSDA input 16033 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 40–40 g across those source formulations. These are source-formulation input weights, not plated or serving weights. Follow the code to inspect every represented occurrence.
Follow this evidence path Test a nearby record choice Chili with meat vs Chili with meat, from restaurantChili with meat is held as one side of the comparison. The explicit record-description contrast is Source context: No matching controlled term in the source name versus restaurant or fast food; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path Put the observed spread in corpus context Dietary fiber: density and serving contextIn this page’s records, dietary fiber runs from 0.5 g in Chili with meat to 3.2 g in Chili with meat, canned, all per 100 g.
Follow this evidence path 2 context records in this source topic Meat mixed dishesChili with meat and Chili with meat, canned belong to this USDA source-category collection. Its displayed ranges and complete exact-record catalog provide the peer set for a manual comparison; the destination does not preselect this page’s record.
Follow this evidence path