HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Google now does nutritional comparisons

  • 5
  • Share

Came across this tip on a reddit post. If you type two foods separated by vs such as

broccoli vs kale

in the search bar, the result will be a nutritional comparison between the two foods. Handy!

(Apparently kale has fat content. Who knew?)

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
Posting Guidelines | FAQs | Feedback
Cancel
  1. Hm, it seems to only work with "like" foods. "grapes vs apples" worked. "grapes vs bacon" did not. It's too bad, because I was trying to make that choice just prior to my most recent heart attack.

    3 Replies
    1. re: davis_sq_pro

      Their entry for bacon is a good lesson in not taking any source at face value, since it shows 3 oz of bacon as containing over 700 calories. Still, most results seem not so ridiculous.

      1. re: ennuisans

        Google search on 'bacon nutrition' gives me a side bar that gives 763 calories for 3oz. It also gives 85g fat, 0.1g protein. 85g fat * 9cal/g = 765 cal.

        There's a menu for different forms of bacon, raw, 'cooked', baked, pan-fried etc. This 763 is for 'cooked'. I suspect this entry should be relabeled as 'cooked bacon grease' (since it is nearly all fat, and minimal protein and sugar).

        I reported as a labeling error.

        Here's the relevant USDA page:
        http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/sho...
        "Basic Report: 10864, Pork, bacon, rendered fat, cooked"

        do your own search here:
        http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list

        1. re: paulj

          Well sleuthed! And yeah, 3 oz of bacon fat would make more sense with those numbers.

    2. Type just a single food, like radish, and on the right side of the page of search results is the nutrition data... Very cool. Hate hate the search tools for plain foods on sites like nutritiondata.com