Feast Get Feast
Menu

Portions and preparation · USDA nutrition

Beef, ground calories per cup: 326–479 across all 4 named USDA examples

Across all 4 named USDA examples, a cup contains 326–479 calories. Their listed weights span 125–225 g, so each calorie value is calculated from that example's own gram weight and published calories per 100 g.

Portion calculator

Estimate your portion

Choose a source measure or enter the weight you ate.

Preparation and portion

Named measures come from this exact source record.

Estimated for 85 g

222calories

Beef, ground

Protein
21.8 g
Carbs
0 g
Fat
14.3 g

These values scale the selected reference food by weight. Ingredients, preparation, and portion size can change your meal’s estimate.

FoodData Central Survey Foods (FNDDS) · FDC 2705854 Full nutrition profile →

Compare all 4 food records, nutrition tables and USDA sources

The 4 exact records in this guide report 181–326 calories in the records' own listed source servings and 213–272 calories per 100 grams. Those are observations from named database records—not a universal range or an estimate of an unseen plate.

Match my meal

Start with the description closest to what you ate

For Beef, ground, begin by separating “Beef, ground” from “Beef, ground, with egg and onion.” Choosing a card filters this source set; it does not infer the portion or fill in ingredients the chosen description does not name.

Showing all 4 linked records.

Equal-weight view

How beef, ground records compare at 100 grams

All 4 cited records are shown at the same 100-gram weight. The source servings may differ.

  1. Beef, ground, raw 213 kcal
    213 kcal
  2. Beef, ground, with egg and onion 228 kcal
    228 kcal
  3. Beef, ground 261 kcal
    261 kcal
  4. Beef, ground, patty 272 kcal
    272 kcal

Shared basis: 100 g · kilocalories

What this page compares

Named source records, not one universal meal

This guide keeps 4 named USDA records in view: 4 direct matches. They span 2 source categories, including Ground beef and Meat mixed dishes. The exact descriptions remain the unit of comparison; the familiar heading is only the doorway into the evidence.

Why these records appear together: The deterministic grouping rule “normalized first two description segments” placed these 4 records together under the exact grouping key “beef ground.” That rule determines membership before any nutrition result is read.

For Beef, ground, this page can compare 4 named records from FDC 2705854 through FDC 2706748. It cannot observe which preparation was eaten, recover unnamed additions, or supply the eaten grams.

Read the shared calculation, provenance, and uncertainty method →

Editor’s decision brief

The three facts to carry into the table

Carry the denominator, exact identity, and strongest observed contrast into every number below.

Portion

85–143 g before composition

The largest source amount is 1.7× the smallest. Read per-serving calorie differences with that mass gap in view.

Composition

59 kcal separates the fixed-weight endpoints

The lower endpoint is “raw”; the higher is “patty.” This isolates density, not ingredient causation.

Discriminator

359 mg sodium gap per 100 g

Of protein, fiber, and sodium, the strongest normalized contrast is between “raw” (373 mg) and “with egg and onion” (732 mg).

Observed source examples

Three landmarks inside this source set—not universal endpoints

The cards are ordered by calories in each record's listed serving. Serving weights differ, so use per-100-gram values to compare composition. These selected records do not define a calorie range for every beef, ground.

Important: “Lower” begins with Beef, ground, raw; “higher” ends with Beef, ground, with egg and onion, using each record’s own source amount. Those labels order this selected set only—they are not endpoints for every beef, ground meal.

Full comparison

Compare every selected FNDDS record

For Beef, ground, serving columns preserve each record’s own listed amount, while calories per 100 g hold weight constant. A dash means the cited record does not supply that field; it does not mean the nutrient is absent.

On smaller screens, focus the table and scroll horizontally to read every column.

USDA records selected for the Beef, ground nutrition guide
Exact source record Match Source amount Calories kcal / 100 g Protein Fiber Sodium USDA
Beef, ground Direct name match 85 gUSDA reference amount 222 kcal 261 21.8 g 0 g 324 mg FDC 2705854 ↗
Beef, ground, patty Direct name match 85 gUSDA reference amount 231 kcal 272 21.6 g 0 g 326 mg FDC 2705855 ↗
Beef, ground, raw Direct name match 85 gUSDA reference amount 181 kcal 213 15.6 g 0 g 317 mg FDC 2705853 ↗
Beef, ground, with egg and onion Direct name match 143 gUSDA reference amount 326 kcal 228 31.3 g 0.1 g 1,047 mg FDC 2706748 ↗

Portion analysis

Serving total and calorie density answer different questions

The listed source amounts run from 85 to 143 grams—a 58-gram gap before composition enters the comparison. Their own source servings run from 181 calories for “raw” to 326 for “with egg and onion.” At a fixed 100 grams, “raw” is 213 calories and “patty” is 272—a fixed-weight separation of 59 calories. For Beef, ground, the serving view answers “how much is in the database portion?”; the 100-gram view answers “how concentrated is the matched record?” Neither reveals how many grams were actually eaten.

The scaling rule: multiply a per-100-gram value by eaten grams ÷ 100. The arithmetic is exact; the result is only as defensible as the record match and portion estimate.

Preparation analysis

The long description carries the evidence

The published descriptions distinguish forms such as “ground”, “ground, patty”, “ground, raw”, and “ground, with egg and onion”. Across the source formulations, the shared backbone includes salt, table; differentiating rows include beef, ground, 75% lean meat / 25% fat, patty, cooked, broiled, beef, ground, 80% lean meat / 20% fat, patty, cooked, broiled, beef, ground, and beef, ground, 85% lean meat / 15% fat, patty, cooked, broiled. On this Beef, ground page, those rows make the records inspectable, but they are not a controlled experiment: they cannot tell us that one named input, by itself, caused a nutrient difference.

Database precision is not meal certainty. Retain the exact description beside the number so later corrections remain possible.

What changes the comparison

Four drivers worth checking before choosing a record

The family label “Beef, ground” cannot resolve the differences between Beef, ground and Beef, ground, with egg and onion. The four checks below identify the record wording, source weight, and formulation evidence that can.

  1. 01

    Source weight before serving calories

    The source amounts span 85–143 grams. Compare per 100 grams before reading a serving-calorie gap as a composition gap.

  2. 02

    The words that split the family

    Representative record-level distinctions include “ground”, “ground, patty”, “ground, raw”, and “ground, with egg and onion”. Those phrases are evidence for choosing a record, not decorative subtitle text.

  3. 03

    Formulation evidence, with limits

    Shared source rows include salt, table; rows that vary across the set include beef, ground, 75% lean meat / 25% fat, patty, cooked, broiled, beef, ground, 80% lean meat / 20% fat, patty, cooked, broiled, and beef, ground. Presence is inspectable evidence, not proof of nutrient causation.

  4. 04

    The unresolved plate

    Even “Beef, ground” leaves the eaten grams and unnamed oils, sauces, toppings, substitutions, or leftovers unresolved. Preserve those Beef, ground unknowns for correction instead of converting them into false precision.

Record matching

Match identity first; scale quantity second

Read the source name as a sequence of decisions. First confirm that beef, ground is the right meal family. Then resolve the phrases that actually separate this set—“ground”, “ground, patty”, “ground, raw”, and “ground, with egg and onion”—before comparing gram weight. If a package, menu, or known recipe provides a closer first-party description, prefer it and keep this USDA record as a transparent fallback.

A practical matching checklist

  1. Read the complete Beef, ground source description, including preparation and additions.
  2. Compare the listed source weight with the amount actually eaten.
  3. Prefer a current package or restaurant source when a specific branded item is known.
  4. Record toppings, sauces, cooking fat, sides, and substitutions that the selected description does not name.

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 4 exact records behind Beef, ground source-record guide. Links are chosen by record identity, controlled contrast, formulation input, nutrient spread, or serving context—not by loose keyword similarity.

Equal-weight result

Beef, ground, with egg and onion is higher in carbohydrate per 100 g

Beef, ground, with egg and onion reports 1.1 g versus 0 g for Beef, ground: a 1.1 g difference when both are normalized to 100 g.

Inspect the underlying evidence

The denominator changes the answer

Beef, ground is denser; Beef, ground, with egg and onion is higher in its source amount

Beef, ground reports 261 kcal per 100 g and 222 kcal in USDA source amount (85 g). Beef, ground, with egg and onion reports a lower 228 kcal per 100 g but a higher 326 kcal in USDA source amount (143 g).

Choose the record before reading the number

Beef, ground and Beef, ground, raw are not interchangeable

The page keeps both records at the same 100 g denominator and makes Preparation wording (No matching controlled term in the source name versus raw) the explicit record-description contrast. It does not show that the wording difference caused a nutrient difference. Pick the description that matches the food in front of you rather than averaging away the distinction.

Inspect the underlying evidence

Contextual knowledge graph

Follow the relationship that matches your question

For Beef, ground source-record guide, each path states why the destination belongs here, so you can distinguish a true evidentiary connection from a merely similar label.

Compare two records on this page Beef, ground vs Beef, ground, raw

Both records appear in this page’s evidence set. The explicit record-description contrast is Preparation wording: No matching controlled term in the source name versus raw; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.

Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Beef, ground, 75% lean meat / 25% fat, patty, cooked, broiled

USDA input 23578 appears in 2 of 4 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 40–50 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 Beef, ground

USDA input 21500100 appears in 1 of 4 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 453.6–453.6 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 1 context record in this source topic Meat mixed dishes

Beef, ground, with egg and onion belongs 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 Put the observed spread in corpus context Sodium: density and serving context

In this page’s records, sodium runs from 373 mg in Beef, ground, raw to 732 mg in Beef, ground, with egg and onion, all per 100 g.

Follow this evidence path Put the observed spread in corpus context Calcium: density and serving context

In this page’s records, calcium runs from 15 mg in Beef, ground, raw to 27 mg in Beef, ground, patty, all per 100 g.

Follow this evidence path Inspect an exact record Beef, ground

Open the full nutrient table, household measures, formulation inputs, and FoodData Central 2705854 citation for this exact record—not a name-level average.

Follow this evidence path