Greens, canned, cooked vs Greens, fresh, cooked, no added fatUSDA FDC 2709598 vs 2709593
A controlled equal-weight comparison of two exact USDA survey-food records, with source descriptions, representative amounts, listed formulation inputs, and interpretation limits kept visible.
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.
| Nutrient | A · Greens, canned, cooked | B · Greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 41 kcal | 37 kcal | A +4 kcal |
| Protein | 1.3 g | 3 g | B +1.7 g |
| Total fat | 2.8 g | 1 g | A +1.8 g |
| Carbohydrate | 2.7 g | 5.2 g | B +2.5 g |
| Dietary fiberMaterial under the publication gate | 1.3 g | 4.2 g | B +2.9 g |
| Total sugars | 0.4 g | 0.7 g | B +0.3 g |
| SodiumMaterial under the publication gate | 335 mg | 159 mg | A +176 mg |
| Saturated fat | 0.7 g | 0.1 g | A +0.6 g |
| PotassiumMaterial under the publication gate | 136 mg | 302 mg | B +166 mg |
| Calcium | 114 mg | 235 mg | B +121 mg |
| Iron | 1.5 mg | 1.1 mg | A +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.
Dietary fiber difference
2.9 g per 100 g
Greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat reports 2.9 g more dietary fiber per 100 grams than Greens, canned, cooked (4.2 versus 1.3 g).
The absolute difference is 69% of the larger reported value. That percentage describes these two records only; it is not an estimate of biological effect or expected variation.
Sodium difference
176 mg per 100 g
Greens, canned, cooked reports 176 mg more sodium per 100 grams than Greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat (335 versus 159 mg).
The absolute difference is 53% of the larger reported value. That percentage describes these two records only; it is not an estimate of biological effect or expected variation.
What differs in the source descriptions
The exact names carry information the numbers cannot.
USDA assigns both records to “Other dark green vegetables,” but the topic label is broad. Record A is “Greens, canned, cooked.” Record B is “Greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat.” 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Added-fat wording | No matching controlled term in the source name | no added fat |
| Source form | canned | fresh |
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 Typical reported amount at 88 g. Record B uses Typical reported amount at 65 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 two representative amounts differ by 23 g (26% of the larger amount). This is why the main table holds mass at 100 g. After selecting the closer description, use its household measure or a gram estimate for the amount actually eaten.
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 cup175 g
- Quantity not specified88 g
Record B measures
- 1 cup130 g
- Quantity not specified65 g
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 Turnip greens, canned, no salt added, Oil or table fat, NFS, Salt, table. Record B’s include Collards, fresh, cooked, no added fat, Kale, fresh, cooked, no added fat, Mustard greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat, Turnip greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat. Ingredient-code overlap is 0%, and normalized listed-input-weight variation is 100%.
Record A · 3 input rows
Greens, canned, cooked
- Turnip greens, canned, no salt addedIngredient code 4338796.3% of listed input weight
- Oil or table fat, NFSIngredient code 812001002.9% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 20470.8% of listed input weight
Record B · 4 input rows
Greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat
- Collards, fresh, cooked, no added fatIngredient code 7210721140% of listed input weight
- Kale, fresh, cooked, no added fatIngredient code 7211921140% of listed input weight
- Mustard greens, fresh, cooked, no added fatIngredient code 7212221110% of listed input weight
- Turnip greens, fresh, cooked, no added fatIngredient code 7212821110% of listed input weight
0 shared coded inputs
The two listed formulations do not share an ingredient code in this source extract. Shared codes can still carry different listed weights.
3 A-only and 4 B-only coded inputs
A-only entries include Turnip greens, canned, no salt added, Oil or table fat, NFS, Salt, table. B-only entries include Collards, fresh, cooked, no added fat, Kale, fresh, cooked, no added fat, Mustard greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat, Turnip greens, fresh, cooked, no added fat.
Important: these weights belong to USDA’s source formulation. Their percentages are shares of the listed input weight, not a reconstructed plate, final cooked yield, visitor serving, ingredient declaration, or estimate of what is visible in a photo.
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.
Several details can change together. Moisture affects concentration per 100 grams. Coating or sauce can add carbohydrate and sodium. Edible skin or fat changes the portion represented. Restaurant, school, frozen, canned, fresh, home-recipe, and ready-to-heat records may use distinct standardized formulations. The source descriptions and input lists help show those differences, but they cannot assign cause.
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.