CLASSIC WHITE ENRICHED ROLLS vs SAN FRANCISCO STYLE SOURDOUGH
Nutrition comparison per 100 g serving
Ad 468x60
CLASSIC WHITE ENRICHED ROLLS wins in 8 out of 15 nutrient categories
CLASSIC WHITE ENRICHED ROLLS: 8
vs
SAN FRANCISCO STYLE SOURDOUGH: 3
(4 ties)
Overview
| Nutrient | CLASSIC WHITE ENRICHED ROLLS | SAN FRANCISCO STYLE SOURDOUGH | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 286 cal | 250 cal | |
| Protein | 7.1 g | 6.3 g | |
| Carbs | 50 g | 50 g | Tie |
| Fat | 5.4 g | 0 g | |
| Fiber | 0 g | 3.1 g | |
| Sugar | 0 g | 0 g | Tie |
Vitamins
| Vitamin | CLASSIC WHITE ENRICHED ROLLS | SAN FRANCISCO STYLE SOURDOUGH | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Folate, total | 107 UG | 0 UG | |
| Niacin | 3.9 MG | 0 MG | |
| Riboflavin | 0.4 MG | 0 MG | |
| Thiamin | 0 MG | 0 MG | Tie |
| Vitamin D (D2 + D3) | 0 UG | 0 UG | Tie |
Minerals
| Mineral | CLASSIC WHITE ENRICHED ROLLS | SAN FRANCISCO STYLE SOURDOUGH | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calcium, Ca | 107 MG | 62 MG | |
| Iron, Fe | 2.9 MG | 0 MG | |
| Potassium, K | 71 MG | 0 MG | |
| Sodium, Na | 500 MG | 438 MG |