Feast Get Feast
Menu

Portions and preparation · USDA nutrition

Chili with meat calories per cup: 270–408 across all 3 named USDA examples

Across all 3 named USDA examples, a cup contains 270–408 calories. Each included example lists 255 g for that measure. The same household label can carry a different gram weight elsewhere in USDA data.

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 1 cup · 255 g

354calories

Chili with meat

Protein
33.9 g
Carbs
6.1 g
Fat
21 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 2706377 Full nutrition profile →

Compare all 3 food records, nutrition tables and USDA sources

The 3 exact records in this guide report 270–408 calories in the records' own listed source servings and 106–160 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 Chili with meat, begin by separating “Chili with meat” from “Chili with meat, from restaurant.” 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 chili with meat records compare at 100 grams

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

  1. Chili with meat, canned 106 kcal
    106 kcal
  2. Chili with meat 139 kcal
    139 kcal
  3. Chili with meat, from restaurant 160 kcal
    160 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 “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 description segment” placed these 3 records together under the exact grouping key “chili with meat.” That rule determines membership before any nutrition result is read.

For Chili with meat, this page can compare 3 named records from FDC 2706377 through FDC 2706374. 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

A shared 255 g comparison anchor

Equal source weights make the selected Chili with meat serving totals easier to compare, but the eaten portion still has to be measured or estimated.

Composition

54 kcal separates the fixed-weight endpoints

The lower endpoint is “canned”; the higher is “from restaurant.” This isolates density, not ingredient causation.

Discriminator

2.7 g fiber gap per 100 g

Of protein, fiber, and sodium, the strongest normalized contrast is between “Chili with meat” (0.5 g) and “canned” (3.2 g).

Observed source examples

Three landmarks inside this source set—not universal endpoints

These 3 records each use a 255 g serving. Their serving calories compare equal weights within this set. They do not define a calorie range for every chili with meat; match the preparation and adjust to your portion.

Important: “Lower” begins with Chili with meat, canned; “higher” ends with Chili with meat, from restaurant, using each record’s own source amount. Those labels order this selected set only—they are not endpoints for every chili with meat meal.

Full comparison

Compare every selected FNDDS record

For Chili with meat, 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 Chili with meat nutrition guide
Exact source record Match Source amount Calories kcal / 100 g Protein Fiber Sodium USDA
Chili with meat Direct name match 255 gUSDA reference amount 354 kcal 139 33.9 g 1.3 g 910 mg FDC 2706377 ↗
Chili with meat, canned Direct name match 255 gUSDA reference amount 270 kcal 106 21.7 g 8.2 g 910 mg FDC 2706376 ↗
Chili with meat, from restaurant Direct name match 255 gUSDA reference amount 408 kcal 160 30.6 g 4.8 g 1,053 mg FDC 2706374 ↗

Portion analysis

Serving total and calorie density answer different questions

Every selected record uses a 255-gram source amount, so serving-weight differences do not explain the calorie spread inside this set. Their own source servings run from 270 calories for “canned” to 408 for “from restaurant.” At a fixed 100 grams, “canned” is 106 calories and “from restaurant” is 160—a fixed-weight separation of 54 calories. For Chili with meat, 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 “Chili with meat”, “canned”, and “from restaurant”. Across the source formulations, the shared backbone includes beef as ingredient in recipes, beverages, water, tap, drinking, and green pepper, cooked, as ingredient; differentiating rows include beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, without salt and vegetable oil, nfs. On this Chili with meat 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 “Chili with meat” cannot resolve the differences between Chili with meat and Chili with meat, from restaurant. The four checks below identify the record wording, source weight, and formulation evidence that can.

  1. 01

    A shared source weight

    Every selected record uses 255 grams. Inside this set, serving-calorie differences therefore reflect the published composition rather than a change in source weight.

  2. 02

    The words that split the family

    Representative record-level distinctions include “Chili with meat”, “canned”, and “from restaurant”. Those phrases are evidence for choosing a record, not decorative subtitle text.

  3. 03

    Formulation evidence, with limits

    Shared source rows include beef as ingredient in recipes and beverages, water, tap, drinking; rows that vary across the set include beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, without salt and vegetable oil, nfs. Presence is inspectable evidence, not proof of nutrient causation.

  4. 04

    The unresolved plate

    Even “Chili with meat” leaves the eaten grams and unnamed oils, sauces, toppings, substitutions, or leftovers unresolved. Preserve those Chili with meat 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 chili with meat is the right meal family. Then resolve the phrases that actually separate this set—“Chili with meat”, “canned”, and “from restaurant”—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 Chili with meat 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 Chili with meat 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

Chili with meat, canned is higher in dietary fiber per 100 g

Chili with meat, canned reports 3.2 g versus 0.5 g for Chili with meat: a 2.7 g difference when both are normalized to 100 g.

Inspect the underlying evidence

These listed servings have equal weights

3 listed servings each weigh 255 g

The 3 records with a listed serving weight on this page each use 255 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.

Choose the record before reading the number

Chili with meat, canned and Chili with meat, from restaurant are not interchangeable

The page keeps both records at the same 100 g denominator and makes Source form (canned versus No matching controlled term in the source name) 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 Chili with meat 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 Chili with meat, canned vs Chili with meat, from restaurant

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

Follow this evidence path Compare two records on this page Chili with meat vs Chili with meat, canned

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

Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, without salt

USDA input 16033 appears in 2 of 3 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 20–40 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, NFS

USDA input 82101000 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 Meat mixed dishes

Chili with meat and Chili with meat, canned 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 Dietary fiber: density and serving context

In this page’s records, dietary fiber runs from 0.5 g in Chili with meat to 3.2 g in Chili with meat, canned, all per 100 g.

Follow this evidence path Inspect an exact record Chili with meat

Open the full nutrient table, household measures, formulation inputs, and FoodData Central 2706377 citation for this exact record—not a name-level average.

Follow this evidence path