Structured Nutritional Data & Citations
Nutritional Profile: Tomato Juice (Unsalted, Ready-to-Drink)
I. Macronutrients & Energy (Per 100g and Standard Serving)
| Nutrient | Per 100g (Approx.) | Per Standard Serving (243g / 1 Cup) (Approx.) |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | 18 kcal (75 kJ) | 44 kcal (183 kJ) |
| Protein | 0.82 g | 2.0 g |
| Carbohydrates | 3.89 g | 9.5 g |
| - Sugars | 2.9 g | 7.1 g |
| - Fiber | 0.8 g | 2.0 g |
| Total Fat | 0.1 g | 0.24 g |
Reference: USDA FoodData Central, FDC ID: 170494 (Tomato juice, canned, without salt added)
II. Key Micronutrients & Antioxidants
A. Vitamins:
- Vitamin C: ~16.0 mg (18% DV per 100g)
- Vitamin A (as Beta-carotene): ~449 mcg RAE (50% DV per 100g)
- Vitamin K: ~3.0 mcg
- Folate (Vitamin B9): ~15 mcg
- Vitamin B6: ~0.08 mg
B. Minerals:
- Potassium: ~217 mg (5% DV per 100g)
- Magnesium: ~11 mg
- Iron: ~0.26 mg
C. Antioxidants:
- Lycopene: Dominant carotenoid, ~9-15 mg per 100g (varies with processing and ripeness). Responsible for red color; linked to reduced risk of chronic diseases.
- Beta-carotene: Precursor to Vitamin A.
- Chlorogenic acid, Coumaric acid: Phenolic acids with antioxidant properties.
Reference: USDA FoodData Central, FDC ID: 170494; peer-reviewed nutritional literature on tomato phytonutrients.
III. Functional Impact
- Glycemic Index (GI): ~38-40 (Low-Moderate)
- Tomato juice typically has a low-moderate GI, leading to a relatively slow and steady rise in blood glucose compared to high-sugar beverages.
- Glycemic Load (GL) per Standard Serving (243g): ~3-4 (Low)
- Given its carbohydrate content and GI, a standard serving exerts a low glycemic load.
- Satiety Score: Moderate
- Due to its water content, fiber, and viscosity, tomato juice can contribute to satiety, though less so than whole, solid foods. The physical volume helps signal fullness.
Reference: University of Sydney Glycemic Index Database; nutritional consensus on liquid food satiety factors.
IV. Physical Properties
- Density: ~1.03 g/cm³ at 20°C
- Slightly denser than water due to dissolved solids (sugars, salts, pulp particles).
- Volumetric Contraction After Cooking (for Ready-to-Drink Juice): Minimal (<1%)
- For commercially prepared, ready-to-drink tomato juice, significant volumetric contraction (e.g., due to water evaporation) does not occur post-packaging. The juice is already processed (often pasteurized) to a stable liquid state. Substantial volume reduction occurs during the initial transformation of raw tomatoes into concentrate or paste, but this is a production step, not a post-processing consumer property of the juice itself.
Reference: Food Science and Technology handbooks; empirical measurements for liquid food products.
Field Notes: Dr. Aria Vance
Subject: Tomato Juice
Focus: Volumetric expansion/contraction, historical context, tracking challenges.
The Elusive Metrics of Tomato Juice
Dr. Aria Vance, Lead Nutrition Data Scientist, NutriSnap
The venerable tomato juice. Such a simple concept, really. Crushed tomatoes, a dash of salt sometimes, maybe some spices. Yet, tracking it for accurate nutritional intake? A complete nightmare. It’s insidious.
Historically, this crimson concoction emerged as a health tonic. Back in the early 20th century, some hotel chef in Indiana, apparently short on orange juice, improvised. He puréed tomatoes. Thus, a legend was born! It quickly became the go-to "healthy" beverage. From airline staple to post-Prohibition "Bloody Mary" base, its cultural footprint is deep. But that history, those diverse applications, they breed nutritional chaos. Each evolution adds layers of complexity.
Consider the manual tracking conundrum. You want to log your intake. You pick up a bottle. Does it have salt? Low sodium? Spicy V8? Each variation, however subtle, shifts the macro and micronutrient profile. A regular UPC scan might capture the base product. But what if you've added a splash of Worcestershire sauce? Or a dash of Tabasco? Or—heaven forbid—a celery stick, which, though often neglected, does contribute something. Barcodes are too rigid, too unyielding for the fluid reality of how we actually consume things.
Then there's the serving size. Oh, the humanity! "A glass." What even is a glass? My colleague, Dr. Chen, insists his "half-pint tumbler" is a standard serving. But it's clearly a pint glass, two-thirds full! People simply do not measure their juice. They pour. They eyeball. They estimate. And their estimates are, universally, wildly inaccurate. You ask them to use a measuring cup? The groans are audible across the data lab. A kitchen scale? For liquid? The sheer impracticality often leads to abandonment. Or, worse, generic "tomato juice" entries that gloss over the critical granular details. This isn't just a minor deviation; it's a systemic failure in data collection. It skews dietary analysis. It propagates nutritional misinformation. This manual tedium, the sheer behavioral friction, it's why people give up on accurate tracking altogether. They crave ease. They demand accuracy. They receive neither.
This problem, this deep, structural flaw in traditional nutrition tracking, is precisely what NutriSnap was built to solve. Our AI doesn't care if it's a pint glass or a teacup. It sees the volume, it differentiates between brand variations from visual cues, even recognizes common additives. Forensic visual analysis. Revolutionary. We track the unquantifiable, one photo at a time. This changes everything.
Explore More Research
Tired of Manual Tracking?
Stop scanning barcodes and guessing portion sizes. NutriSnap uses forensic AI to track your macros instantly from a single photo.