Composite Household Vegetable Shortening has 18 times more energy per 100g than Navel Oranges. It has very high energy density when compared to other foods. Raw Navel Oranges having low energy density.
Discover which food has more nutrients per 100 calories - Composite Household Vegetable Shortening or Navel Oranges?
Composite Household Vegetable Shortening VS Navel Oranges Nutrients Per 100 Kcal
Discover which food has more nutrients per 100 calories - Composite Household Vegetable Shortening or Navel Oranges?
Lets compare vitamin content per 100 calories of Composite Household Vegetable Shortening vs Navel Oranges:
100 calories of Composite Household Vegetable Shortening have 2.3 times more Vitamin E and more Vitamin K than Navel Oranges.
While 100 kcal of Raw Navel Oranges contain more Vitamin A, 61.3 times more Vitamin B1, more Vitamin B2, more Vitamin B3, 6.9 times more Vitamin B5, 1425.2 times more Vitamin B6, more Vitamin B9 and more Vitamin C than Composite Household Vegetable Shortening.
100 calories of Composite Household Vegetable Shortening have insufficient amounts of Vitamin A, Vitamin B1, Vitamin B2, Vitamin B3, Vitamin B5, Vitamin B6, Vitamin B9 and Vitamin C
100 calories of Navel Oranges have insufficient amounts of Vitamin K
Both Composite Household Vegetable Shortening as well as Raw Navel Oranges have insufficient amounts of Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D in 100 calories.
Comparing minerals per 100 calories for Composite Household Vegetable Shortening vs Navel Oranges:
100 kcal of Raw Navel Oranges contain 775.8 times more Calcium, more Copper, 33.5 times more Iron, more Magnesium, more Manganese, more Phosphorus, more Potassium and more Water than Composite Household Vegetable Shortening.
100 calories of Composite Household Vegetable Shortening lack sufficient amounts of Calcium, Copper, Iron, Magnesium, Manganese, Phosphorus and Potassium
Both Composite Household Vegetable Shortening as well as Raw Navel Oranges lack sufficient amounts of Selenium and Zinc in 100 calories.
Comparison of macro-nutrients per 100 calories:
100 calories of Composite Household Vegetable Shortening have 36.9 times more Fat, 81.4 times more Saturated Fat, 11.6 times more Omega 3 and 63.2 times more Omega 6 than Navel Oranges.
While 100 kcal of Raw Navel Oranges contain more Carbohydrate, more Sugars, more Fiber and more Protein than Composite Household Vegetable Shortening.
Both Composite Household Vegetable Shortening and Navel Oranges offer comparable quantities of Energy per 100 calories.
100 calories of Composite Household Vegetable Shortening provide inadequate amounts of Carbohydrate, Fiber and Protein
100 calories of Navel Oranges provide inadequate amounts of Omega 3 and Omega 6