Structured Nutritional Data & Citations
Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Nutritional Profile
I. Macroscopic Nutritional Data
| Nutrient Group | Per 100g (Cooked, Dry Heat) | Per Standard Serving (85g, Cooked) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | 178 kcal | 151 kcal | USDA FDC¹ |
| Macros | |||
| Protein | 22.8 g | 19.4 g | USDA FDC¹ |
| Total Fat | 9.5 g | 8.1 g | USDA FDC¹ |
| Saturated Fat | 1.8 g | 1.5 g | USDA FDC¹ |
| Monounsaturated Fat | 2.6 g | 2.2 g | USDA FDC¹ |
| Polyunsaturated Fat | 3.5 g | 3.0 g | USDA FDC¹ |
| - Omega-3 (EPA+DHA) | 1.8 g | 1.5 g | USDA FDC¹ |
| Carbohydrates | 0 g | 0 g | USDA FDC¹ |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0 g | USDA FDC¹ |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0 g | USDA FDC¹ |
II. Key Micronutrients & Bioactive Compounds (Per 100g, Cooked)
- Vitamins:
- Vitamin B12: 4.2 µg (175% Daily Value)
- Vitamin D: 16.2 µg (81% Daily Value)
- Niacin (B3): 5.3 mg (33% Daily Value)
- Pyridoxine (B6): 0.4 mg (24% Daily Value)
- Minerals:
- Selenium: 36.5 µg (66% Daily Value)
- Phosphorus: 247 mg (35% Daily Value)
- Potassium: 405 mg (9% Daily Value)
- Magnesium: 27 mg (6% Daily Value)
- Antioxidants:
- Contains Astaxanthin (especially in wild or farm-fed trout with specific diets), a powerful carotenoid antioxidant responsible for the characteristic pinkish-orange flesh.
III. Functional Impact
- Glycemic Index (GI): 0 (As a pure protein and fat source, trout has a negligible impact on blood glucose levels.)
- Glycemic Load (GL): 0
- Satiety Score (SS): High (Protein and fat content contribute significantly to prolonged satiety. Estimated to be >200% when compared to white bread on a standardized scale, aligning with other lean fish varieties.²)
IV. Physical Properties
- Density (Cooked Flesh): Approximately 1.05 - 1.08 g/cm³ (Subject to minor variations based on cooking method and inherent fat content of the specific specimen).³
- Volumetric Contraction After Cooking: Ranges from 10-18% (Primarily attributed to moisture loss during thermal processing, leading to a reduction in overall volume and a corresponding increase in nutrient density per unit of remaining mass).⁴
V. Citations & References
- USDA FoodData Central. "Fish, trout, rainbow, cooked, dry heat." FDC ID: 2706306. Accessed November 27, 2023. Available from: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/2706306/nutrients
- Holt, S.H.A., et al. (1995). "A satiety index of common foods." European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 49(9), 675-690. (General principles of fish satiety applied).
- Based on established food engineering principles and empirical data for cooked fish muscle density. Refer to general literature such as Mohsenin, N.N. (1986). Physical Properties of Plant and Animal Materials. Gordon and Breach.
- Data derived from food science studies on thermal processing of fish, indicating water migration and subsequent volume reduction. See, for instance, Bellagha, S. et al. (2007). "Effect of cooking on texture and water-holding capacity of seabream (Sparus aurata) fillets." Food Science and Technology International, 13(2), 147-152. (Mechanistic principles extrapolated to trout).
Field Notes: Dr. Aria Vance
Subject: Trout
Focus: Volumetric expansion/contraction, historical context, tracking challenges.
The Elusive Trout: A Tracking Nightmare
Dr. Aria Vance, Lead Nutrition Data Scientist, NutriSnap.
Trout. My nemesis. Such an elegant fish, really. From the glacial meltwaters of the Rockies to the pristine fjords of Norway, its silvery flash has captivated anglers and nourished communities for millennia, weaving itself into the very fabric of regional culinary identities—think forelle blau in Germany, simply steamed, or smoked trout pâté, a Scottish delight. It’s a clean protein, a champion of Omega-3s. A nutritionist's dream, in theory.
In practice? A tracking catastrophe. Just try getting accurate data for it at home. Go on.
You catch a trout. Or buy a whole one. How much usable flesh are you actually eating? Head, bones, skin. Gone. The yield is wildly variable. Then you cook it. Pan-fried? Did it swim in olive oil, or was it just misted? Baked? Did it shed half its fat into the foil, or was it a drier, leaner preparation? Smoked, a whole different beast. Water loss, fat retention – the dynamics shift with every whisper of heat. And portions? You carve a fillet. Is that a 3-ounce serving? Or closer to 5? You hold it up. It looks about right. But "looks" don't count when we're talking about precise macro tracking. It's a visual puzzle, a constant estimation game where the stakes are your nutritional accuracy. Forget about logging this manually with any real confidence. Barcodes are for packaged goods, not a freshly caught or prepared whole fish. Scales are great, but who pulls out a food scale at a restaurant, or even for every single home meal prep? The tedium. The sheer, soul-crushing drudgery of it all. It leads to nutritional guesswork, a data void where precision should reign.
This is exactly why NutriSnap became my professional obsession. We needed to transcend the primitive tools of the past. To look at a plate and know. Not guess. Not approximate. Not agonize over raw weight versus cooked weight, skin on or off, butter content. NutriSnap, with its forensic visual analysis, simply observes. It learns the subtle textural changes, the sheen of oil, the density implications of a perfectly flaked piece of fish. It quantifies. It solves this. Finally, the true nutritional story of that magnificent trout can be told, not estimated. A digital oracle.
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.