Feast Get Feast
Menu

Portions and preparation · USDA nutrition

Winter squash calories per cup: 36–136 across all 3 named USDA examples

Across all 3 named USDA examples, a cup contains 36–136 calories. Their listed weights span 140–230 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 115 g

68calories

Winter squash, cooked, fat added

Protein
1 g
Carbs
9.9 g
Fat
3.3 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 2709695 Full nutrition profile →

Compare all 3 food records, nutrition tables and USDA sources

The 3 exact records in this guide report 18–68 calories in the records' own listed source servings and 26–59 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 Winter squash, begin by separating “Winter squash, cooked, fat added” from “Winter squash, 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 winter squash records compare at 100 grams

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

  1. Winter squash, raw 26 kcal
    26 kcal
  2. Winter squash, cooked, no added fat 37 kcal
    37 kcal
  3. Winter squash, cooked, fat added 59 kcal
    59 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 red and orange vegetables.” 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 “winter squash.” That rule determines membership before any nutrition result is read.

For Winter squash, this page can compare 3 named records from FDC 2709695 through FDC 2709693. 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

70–115 g before composition

The largest source amount is 1.6× the smallest. Read per-serving calorie differences with that mass gap in view.

Composition

33 kcal separates the fixed-weight endpoints

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

Discriminator

2.3 g fiber gap per 100 g

Of protein, fiber, and sodium, the strongest normalized contrast is between “raw” (0.5 g) and “no added fat” (2.8 g).

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 winter squash.

Important: “Lower” begins with Winter squash, raw; “higher” ends with Winter squash, cooked, fat added, using each record’s own source amount. Those labels order this selected set only—they are not endpoints for every winter squash meal.

Full comparison

Compare every selected FNDDS record

For Winter squash, 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 Winter squash nutrition guide
Exact source record Match Source amount Calories kcal / 100 g Protein Fiber Sodium USDA
Winter squash, cooked, fat added Direct name match 115 gUSDA reference amount 68 kcal 59 1 g 3.1 g 140 mg FDC 2709695 ↗
Winter squash, cooked, no added fat Direct name match 113 gUSDA reference amount 42 kcal 37 1 g 3.2 g 132 mg FDC 2709694 ↗
Winter squash, raw Direct name match 70 gUSDA reference amount 18 kcal 26 0.7 g 0.4 g 1 mg FDC 2709693 ↗

Portion analysis

Serving total and calorie density answer different questions

The listed source amounts run from 70 to 115 grams—a 45-gram gap before composition enters the comparison. Their own source servings run from 18 calories for “raw” to 68 for “fat added.” At a fixed 100 grams, “raw” is 26 calories and “fat added” is 59—a fixed-weight separation of 33 calories. For Winter squash, 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”. The source formulations contain 4 distinct ingredient codes; examples that appear in only part of the set include salt, table, squash, winter, all varieties, cooked, baked, without salt, oil or table fat, nfs, and pumpkin, raw. On this Winter squash 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 “Winter squash” cannot resolve the differences between Winter squash, cooked, fat added and Winter squash, 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 70–115 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

    4 source-input codes appear across the selected records. Their presence and listed weights describe USDA formulations, not finished plated proportions.

  4. 04

    The unresolved plate

    Even “Winter squash, cooked, fat added” leaves the eaten grams and unnamed oils, sauces, toppings, substitutions, or leftovers unresolved. Preserve those Winter squash 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 winter squash 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 Winter squash 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 Winter squash 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

Winter squash, cooked, fat added is higher in sodium per 100 g

Winter squash, cooked, fat added reports 122 mg versus 1 mg for Winter squash, raw: a 121 mg difference when both are normalized to 100 g.

Inspect the underlying evidence

The denominator changes the answer

Winter squash, raw is denser; Winter squash, cooked, no added fat is higher in its source amount

Winter squash, raw reports 1 g per 100 g and 0.7 g in USDA source amount (70 g). Winter squash, cooked, no added fat reports a lower 0.9 g per 100 g but a higher 1 g in USDA source amount (113 g).

Choose the record before reading the number

Winter squash, cooked, fat added and Winter squash, 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 Winter squash 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 Winter squash, cooked, fat added vs Winter squash, 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 Compare two records on this page Winter squash, cooked, no added fat vs Winter squash, 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 red and orange vegetables

Winter squash, cooked, fat added and Winter squash, 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 1 mg in Winter squash, raw to 122 mg in Winter squash, cooked, fat added, all per 100 g.

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 Winter squash, raw to 2.8 g in Winter squash, cooked, no added fat, all per 100 g.

Follow this evidence path