Feast Get Feast
Menu

Portions and preparation · USDA nutrition

Cactus calories per cup: 24–59 across all 3 named USDA examples

Across all 3 named USDA examples, a cup contains 24–59 calories. Their listed weights span 150–155 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 78 g

30calories

Cactus, cooked, fat added

Protein
1 g
Carbs
2.5 g
Fat
2.1 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 2709896 Full nutrition profile →

Compare all 3 food records, nutrition tables and USDA sources

The 3 exact records in this guide report 12–30 calories in the records' own listed source servings and 16–38 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 Cactus, begin by separating “Cactus, cooked, fat added” from “Cactus, raw.” 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 3 linked records.

Equal-weight view

How cactus records compare at 100 grams

All 3 cited records are shown at the same 100-gram weight. The source servings may differ.

  1. Cactus, cooked, no added fat 16 kcal
    16 kcal
  2. Cactus, raw 16 kcal
    16 kcal
  3. Cactus, cooked, fat added 38 kcal
    38 kcal

Shared basis: 100 g · kilocalories

What this page compares

Named source records, not one universal meal

This guide keeps 3 named USDA records in view: 3 direct matches. All sit within “Other vegetables and combinations.” 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 description segment” placed these 3 records together under the exact grouping key “cactus.” That rule determines membership before any nutrition result is read.

For Cactus, this page can compare 3 named records from FDC 2709896 through FDC 2709776. 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

75–78 g before composition

The largest source amount is 1.0× the smallest. Read per-serving calorie differences with that mass gap in view.

Composition

22 kcal separates the fixed-weight endpoints

The lower endpoint is “no added fat”; the higher is “fat added.” This isolates density, not ingredient causation.

Discriminator

120 mg sodium gap per 100 g

Of protein, fiber, and sodium, the strongest normalized contrast is between “raw” (21 mg) and “fat added” (141 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 cactus.

Important: “Lower” begins with Cactus, cooked, no added fat; “higher” ends with Cactus, cooked, fat added, using each record’s own source amount. Those labels order this selected set only—they are not endpoints for every cactus meal.

Full comparison

Compare every selected FNDDS record

For Cactus, 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 Cactus nutrition guide
Exact source record Match Source amount Calories kcal / 100 g Protein Fiber Sodium USDA
Cactus, cooked, fat added Direct name match 78 gUSDA reference amount 30 kcal 38 1 g 1.6 g 110 mg FDC 2709896 ↗
Cactus, cooked, no added fat Direct name match 75 gUSDA reference amount 12 kcal 16 1 g 1.7 g 103 mg FDC 2709895 ↗
Cactus, raw Direct name match 75 gUSDA reference amount 12 kcal 16 1 g 1.7 g 16 mg FDC 2709776 ↗

Portion analysis

Serving total and calorie density answer different questions

The listed source amounts run from 75 to 78 grams—a 3-gram gap before composition enters the comparison. Their own source servings run from 12 calories for “no added fat” to 30 for “fat added.” At a fixed 100 grams, “no added fat” is 16 calories and “fat added” is 38—a fixed-weight separation of 22 calories. For Cactus, 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 “cooked, fat added”, “cooked, no added fat”, and “raw”. Across the source formulations, the shared backbone includes nopales, raw; differentiating rows include salt, table and oil or table fat, nfs. On this Cactus 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 “Cactus” cannot resolve the differences between Cactus, cooked, fat added and Cactus, raw. 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 75–78 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 “cooked, fat added”, “cooked, no added fat”, and “raw”. Those phrases are evidence for choosing a record, not decorative subtitle text.

  3. 03

    Formulation evidence, with limits

    Shared source rows include nopales, raw; rows that vary across the set include salt, table and oil or table fat, nfs. Presence is inspectable evidence, not proof of nutrient causation.

  4. 04

    The unresolved plate

    Even “Cactus, cooked, fat added” leaves the eaten grams and unnamed oils, sauces, toppings, substitutions, or leftovers unresolved. Preserve those Cactus 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 cactus is the right meal family. Then resolve the phrases that actually separate this set—“cooked, fat added”, “cooked, no added fat”, and “raw”—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 Cactus 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 3 exact records behind Cactus 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

Cactus, cooked, fat added is higher in total fat per 100 g

Cactus, cooked, fat added reports 2.6 g versus 0.1 g for Cactus, cooked, no added fat: a 2.5 g difference when both are normalized to 100 g.

Inspect the underlying evidence

The denominator changes the answer

Cactus, cooked, no added fat is denser; Cactus, cooked, fat added is higher in its source amount

Cactus, cooked, no added fat reports 1.3 g per 100 g and 1 g in USDA source amount (75 g). Cactus, cooked, fat added reports a lower 1.3 g per 100 g but a higher 1 g in USDA source amount (78 g).

Choose the record before reading the number

Cactus, cooked, fat added and Cactus, 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 Cactus 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 Cactus, cooked, fat added vs Cactus, 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 Salt, table

USDA input 2047 appears in 2 of 3 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 0.3–0.3 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 Oil or table fat, NFS

USDA input 81200100 appears in 1 of 3 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 3–3 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 3 context records in this source topic Other vegetables and combinations

Cactus, cooked, fat added and Cactus, cooked, no added fat 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 Put the observed spread in corpus context Sodium: density and serving context

In this page’s records, sodium runs from 21 mg in Cactus, raw to 141 mg in Cactus, cooked, fat added, all per 100 g.

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

In this page’s records, calories runs from 16 kcal in Cactus, cooked, no added fat to 38 kcal in Cactus, cooked, fat added, all per 100 g.

Follow this evidence path Inspect an exact record Cactus, cooked, fat added

Open the full nutrient table, household measures, formulation inputs, and FoodData Central 2709896 citation for this exact record—not a name-level average.

Follow this evidence path