Fish, mackerel: baked or broiled coated vs fried USDA FDC 2706266 vs 2706267
Per 100 g, baked or broiled coated reports 245 calories, while fried reports 284 calories.
The comparison uses two cited USDA records. Their complete source names, household portions, nutrient values, and FoodData Central links remain visible below.
Record A · FDC 2706266
Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated
Check this record in FoodData Central ↗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.
-
245 kcal - Fish, mackerel, fried 284 kcal
284 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 · Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated | B · Fish, mackerel, fried | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaloriesMaterial difference | 245 kcal | 284 kcal | B +39 kcal |
| ProteinMaterial difference | 22.3 g | 17.2 g | A +5.1 g |
| Total fatMaterial difference | 13.1 g | 18.2 g | B +5.1 g |
| Carbohydrate | 7.8 g | 11.7 g | B +3.9 g |
| Dietary fiber | 0.3 g | 0.5 g | B +0.2 g |
| Total sugars | 0.1 g | 0.2 g | B +0.1 g |
| Sodium | 353 mg | 409 mg | B +56 mg |
| Saturated fat | 3.6 g | 3.4 g | A +0.2 g |
| PotassiumMaterial difference | 442 mg | 333 mg | A +109 mg |
| Calcium | 34 mg | 32 mg | A +2 mg |
| Iron | 1.8 mg | 1.8 mg | No difference at displayed precision |
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 1, 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 A
Record A reports 245 kcal, compared with 284 kcal in the other record—a difference of 39 kcal.
Which reports more protein?
Record A
Record A reports 22.3 g, compared with 17.2 g in the other record—a difference of 5.1 g.
Which reports more fiber?
Record B
Record B reports 0.5 g, compared with 0.3 g in the other record—a difference of 0.2 g.
Which reports less sodium?
Record A
Record A reports 353 mg, compared with 409 mg in the other record—a difference of 56 mg.
What differs in the source descriptions
The exact names carry information the numbers cannot.
USDA assigns both records to “Fish,” but the topic label is broad. Record A is “Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated.” Record B is “Fish, mackerel, fried.” 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 2 interpretable distinctions. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation wording | baked, roasted, or broiled | fried |
| Coating wording | coated or breaded | No matching controlled term in the source name |
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 140 g. Record B uses USDA reference amount at 140 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 small/regular fillet140 g
- 1 large fillet210 g
- 1 steak210 g
- 1 cup135 g
- 1 oz yields20 g
- 1 cubic inch17 g
- USDA reference amount140 g
Record B measures
- 1 small/regular fillet140 g
- 1 large fillet210 g
- 1 steak210 g
- 1 cup135 g
- 1 oz yields20 g
- 1 cubic inch17 g
- USDA reference amount140 g
One shared household label
1 small/regular fillet: 140 g in A vs 140 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 small/regular fillet.
| Nutrient | A · 140 g | B · 140 g |
|---|---|---|
| Calories | 343 kcal | 398 kcal |
| Protein | 31.2 g | 24.1 g |
| Dietary fiber | 0.4 g | 0.7 g |
| Sodium | 494 mg | 573 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 Fish, mackerel, Pacific and jack, mixed species, raw, Breading or batter as ingredient in food, Oil or table fat, NFS, Salt, table. Record B’s include Fish, mackerel, Pacific and jack, mixed species, raw, Breading or batter as ingredient in food, Vegetable oil, NFS, Salt, table. Ingredient-code overlap is 60%, and normalized listed-input-weight variation is 20%.
Record A · 4 coded inputs
Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated
- Fish, mackerel, Pacific and jack, mixed species, rawIngredient code 15050 · open source index80.7% of listed input weight
- Breading or batter as ingredient in foodIngredient code 99995000 · open source index14.9% of listed input weight
- Oil or table fat, NFSIngredient code 81200100 · open source index4% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.4% of listed input weight
Record B · 4 coded inputs
Fish, mackerel, fried
- Fish, mackerel, Pacific and jack, mixed species, rawIngredient code 15050 · open source index64.6% of listed input weight
- Breading or batter as ingredient in foodIngredient code 99995000 · open source index24.9% of listed input weight
- Vegetable oil, NFSIngredient code 82101000 · open source index9.9% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.6% of listed input weight
3 shared coded inputs
The largest shared entries include Fish, mackerel, Pacific and jack, mixed species, raw, Breading or batter as ingredient in food, Salt, table. Shared codes can still carry different listed weights.
1 A-only and 1 B-only coded inputs
A-only entries include Oil or table fat, NFS. B-only entries include Vegetable oil, NFS.
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.
- NFS means “not further specified.” The record intentionally leaves the exact subtype, size, or preparation unresolved.
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 2 documented description dimensions, while the listed formulations show 60% ingredient-code overlap and 20% 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 Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated versus Fish, mackerel, fried. Links are chosen by record identity, controlled contrast, formulation input, nutrient spread, or serving context—not by loose keyword similarity.
Equal-weight result
Fish, mackerel, fried is higher in calories per 100 g
Fish, mackerel, fried reports 284 kcal versus 245 kcal for Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated: a 39 kcal difference when both are normalized to 100 g.
Inspect the underlying evidenceThese listed servings have equal weights
2 listed servings each weigh 140 g
The 2 records with a listed serving weight on this page each use 140 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 “Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated” from “Fish, mackerel, fried”
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 Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated versus Fish, mackerel, fried, each path states why the destination belongs here, so you can distinguish a true evidentiary connection from a merely similar label.
Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated and Fish, mackerel, fried are explicitly linked in this guide, which separates direct name matches from contextual variants.
Follow this evidence path Test a nearby record choice Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated vs Fish, mackerel, cannedFish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated is held as one side of the comparison. The explicit record-description contrast is Preparation wording: baked, roasted, or broiled versus No matching controlled term in the source name; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path 2 exact records carried forward FishFish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated and Fish, mackerel, fried are explicitly linked in this guide, which separates direct name matches from contextual variants.
Follow this evidence path Test a nearby record choice Fish, mackerel, canned vs Fish, mackerel, friedFish, mackerel, fried is held as one side of the comparison. The explicit record-description contrast is Preparation wording: No matching controlled term in the source name versus fried; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path Put the observed spread in corpus context Calories: density and serving contextIn this page’s records, calories runs from 245 kcal in Fish, mackerel, baked or broiled, coated to 284 kcal in Fish, mackerel, fried, all per 100 g.
Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Oil or table fat, NFSUSDA input 81200100 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 4–4 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 A formulation detail that separates records Vegetable oil, NFSUSDA input 82101000 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 10–10 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