Pizza100 g vs 100 gTwo cited FDC records

Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables vs Pizza, extra cheese, thick crustUSDA FDC 2708629 vs 2708623

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.

Record A · FDC 2708629

Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thin crust

Check this record in FoodData Central ↗

Record B · FDC 2708623

Pizza, extra cheese, thick crust

Check this record in FoodData Central ↗

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.

Per-100-gram nutrient comparison for Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thin crust and Pizza, extra cheese, thick crust
NutrientA · Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thinB · Pizza, extra cheese, thick crustDifference
CaloriesMaterial under the publication gate 208 kcal 272 kcal B +64 kcal
ProteinMaterial under the publication gate 8.7 g 11.4 g B +2.7 g
Total fatMaterial under the publication gate 7.8 g 11 g B +3.2 g
CarbohydrateMaterial under the publication gate 26 g 31.8 g B +5.8 g
Dietary fiber 2.1 g 2.1 g Same reported value
Total sugars 3.3 g 3.3 g A +0 g
Sodium 441 mg 547 mg B +106 mg
Saturated fatMaterial under the publication gate 3.4 g 4.6 g B +1.2 g
Potassium 180 mg 167 mg A +13 mg
Calcium 144 mg 203 mg B +59 mg
Iron 2.3 mg 2.4 mg B +0.1 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.

Calories difference

64 kcal per 100 g

Pizza, extra cheese, thick crust reports 64 kcal more calories per 100 grams than Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thin crust (272 versus 208 kcal).

The absolute difference is 24% of the larger reported value. That percentage describes these two records only; it is not an estimate of biological effect or expected variation.

Protein difference

2.7 g per 100 g

Pizza, extra cheese, thick crust reports 2.7 g more protein per 100 grams than Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thin crust (11.4 versus 8.7 g).

The absolute difference is 24% of the larger reported value. That percentage describes these two records only; it is not an estimate of biological effect or expected variation.

Total fat difference

3.2 g per 100 g

Pizza, extra cheese, thick crust reports 3.2 g more total fat per 100 grams than Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thin crust (11 versus 7.8 g).

The absolute difference is 29% of the larger reported value. That percentage describes these two records only; it is not an estimate of biological effect or expected variation.

Carbohydrate difference

5.8 g per 100 g

Pizza, extra cheese, thick crust reports 5.8 g more carbohydrate per 100 grams than Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thin crust (31.8 versus 26 g).

The absolute difference is 18% 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 “Pizza,” but the topic label is broad. Record A is “Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thin crust.” Record B is “Pizza, extra cheese, thick crust.” Feast paired them because their contrast-neutral food identities are closely related (75% token overlap after controlled modifiers are set aside), 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.

Controlled wording distinctions
Description dimensionRecord ARecord B
Crust wordingthin crustthick crust

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 240 g. Record B uses Typical reported amount at 282 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 piece, NFS120 g
  • 1 piece, small pizza66 g
  • 1 piece, medium pizza86 g
  • 1 piece, large pizza120 g
  • 1 piece, extra-large pizza125 g
  • 1 personal size pizza (5-7" diameter)175 g
  • 1 small pizza (8-10" diameter)394 g
  • 1 medium pizza (11-12" diameter)692 g
Scale record A →

Record B measures

  • 1 piece, NFS141 g
  • 1 piece, small pizza94 g
  • 1 piece, medium pizza99 g
  • 1 piece, large pizza141 g
  • 1 piece, extra-large pizza145 g
  • 1 personal size pizza (5-7" diameter)232 g
  • 1 small pizza (8-10" diameter)565 g
  • 1 medium pizza (11-12" diameter)792 g
Scale record B →

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 Fast Food, Pizza Chain, 14" pizza, cheese topping, regular crust, Mushrooms, cooked, as ingredient, Olives, ripe, canned (small-extra large), Onions, cooked, boiled, drained, without salt. Record B’s include Fast Food, Pizza Chain, 14" pizza, cheese topping, thick crust, Cheese, mozzarella, low moisture, part-skim. Ingredient-code overlap is 0%, and normalized listed-input-weight variation is 100%.

Record A · 5 input rows

Pizza with cheese and extra vegetables, thin crust

  1. Fast Food, Pizza Chain, 14" pizza, cheese topping, regular crustIngredient code 21299
    72.1% of listed input weight
  2. Mushrooms, cooked, as ingredientIngredient code 99997515
    7% of listed input weight
  3. Olives, ripe, canned (small-extra large)Ingredient code 9193
    7% of listed input weight
  4. Onions, cooked, boiled, drained, without saltIngredient code 11283
    7% of listed input weight
  5. Peppers, sweet, green, cooked, boiled, drained, without saltIngredient code 11334
    7% of listed input weight

Record B · 2 input rows

Pizza, extra cheese, thick crust

  1. Fast Food, Pizza Chain, 14" pizza, cheese topping, thick crustIngredient code 21300
    95.3% of listed input weight
  2. Cheese, mozzarella, low moisture, part-skimIngredient code 1029
    4.7% 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.

5 A-only and 2 B-only coded inputs

A-only entries include Fast Food, Pizza Chain, 14" pizza, cheese topping, regular crust, Mushrooms, cooked, as ingredient, Olives, ripe, canned (small-extra large), Onions, cooked, boiled, drained, without salt. B-only entries include Fast Food, Pizza Chain, 14" pizza, cheese topping, thick crust, Cheese, mozzarella, low moisture, part-skim.

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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.