How accurate is cronometer?

I'm trying to work out the nutritional value of 500g dry, uncooked, plain, white, unenriched pasta made from 100% durum wheat semolina.

Cronometer is telling me that 500g would give me a few B vitamins which I expected, but also quite significant amounts of copper and other minerals.

what I added: https://imgur.com/YNaCHNP

the results: https://imgur.com/OCI3Yx4

Is this accurate? I considered white pasta to be basically nutritionally void - even in large quantities.

Is cronometer's nutritional assessment a bit optimistic?

Can anyone recommend any other similar databases to try?

Thanks :)


  • Options

    Does the pasta you're investigating have egg as an ingredient (most do)? If so then I expect that's where much of the protein comes from (protein stuck out for me when I first glanced at your image, not the minerals because semolina has lots of minerals taken up by the plant from the soil it's grown in).

    As for the minerals, they seem to be similar to the levels reported by the Australian nutrition database NUTTAB for white pasta made with semolina and egg; for example it lists copper as .321mg/100g (so 1.6g/500g) which is similar to what's shown in the image you posted. The other minerals are similar as well (within 1 or 2% which is an acceptable range of error, and expected with average values. Also mineral content of things like flour depends not only how it's processed but where it's grown -- lots of mineral values are affected by the soil that the crop is grown in, the water it's irrigated with etc). Anyway, to answer your question, the values in your image look reasonable to me.


Sign In or Register to comment.