Air fried without additional fat as the skin provided plenty. Crispy skin.
So, I’ve checked multiple entries and yes this includes other versions where it’s raw drumstick bone in skin on, which gave me the same stats. I’ve been snacking on vacuum-packed, ready-to-eat 90g chicken breast from 7 eleven (20g protein, 100cal +- 5cal depending on flavour) so I know what that looks like. I am unconvinced by the nutritional count here especially the protein. I got the raw drumstick weight from the packet: 4 drumsticks were 586g, divided by 4 for simplicity since I’m eating them all within 2 days anyway.
(That’s not a meal, it’s a component of a meal. Don’t think there’s a flair for that.)
by wawawakes
3 Comments
What do you find unlikely about it? Much of the mass of a 156g skin-on, bone-in drumstick is skin and bone. It has probably 1/4 more edible meat at most than that 90g skinless chicken breast— hence not having a ton more protein— but a LOT more of that mass is fat. Skinless chicken breast is really lean and therefore an unusually low cal protein source.
Does sound about right. And looks tasty!
Not dubious at all, just about what it is. Id say 200-250 kcal with 25-30g protein for a 5.2 oz drummie. The macros used in the app add up to ~250 kcal if accurate. Dark meat with skin on can be hard for people on very restrictive calorie diets to fit.
90g of chicken breast is almost entirely protein, which is much less calorically dense. 4kcal /gram vs 9kcal for fat. There is a small amount of fat and the rest is water.