Close Menu
    1200 Calorie Diet

    Does it make sense for this crispy chicken to have 204 cals per 100g? Isn’t that too less? How is that possible

    View 5 Comments

    5 Comments

    3. NoDay4343 on

      Any food on the planet can keep you in a calorie deficit if you eat a small enough portion. These may seem big because of the bone inside them, but they won’t fill you up any more than if they were filled with air instead of bone. Altho gnawing on the bone could certainly give you some temporary satisfaction if you do that.

      But the more often you make better choices such as not breading and frying your foods, the healthier your body will be and the more satisfied you’ll feel which generally makes it easier to stick with the diet. Nothing wrong with these on occasion, but I would not make it a staple.

    4. Sir_Canis_IV on

      There’s definitely something wrong with these numbers—they say there’s 204 Calories, but if you add up all the energy from the protein, fat, and carbohydrates, it’s only 187 Calories.

      ⬐ Protein ⬐ Carbohydrates
      (18 g) ⋅ (4 Cal/g) + (11 g) ⋅ (9 Cal/g) + (4 g) ⋅ (4 Cal/g) = 187 Cal
      ⬑ Fat

      Either way, both 204 and 187 Calories sound pretty reasonable—chickens have a lot of bone and water, apparently. Chicken is usually 30% bone, whereas the actual meat itself is like 60% water.

    5. EmbarrassedPea208 on

      Some foods are lower calorie than you’d think. I remember when I realised chocolate eclairs, cream filled sweet pastries with a thick chocolate topping, were only like 120 calories per one. I was like why am I having a bowl of boring cereal in the mornings when I could have that for the same?!

      Well it turns out, the cereal kept me full whereas the eclair I was hungry within an hour.

      As others have said, the bone would make up alot of this weight so even with the coating it would be certainly possible that these calories are correct. You’ll feel much more satisfied eating a chicken breast though 🙂

    Leave A Reply