Great — here’s a detailed nutritional comparison of beef vs. lamb, focusing on common nutrients per 100 grams of cooked meat (typically lean cuts like sirloin or leg, trimmed of visible fat):
Macronutrients (per 100g cooked)
| Nutrient | Beef | Lamb |
| Calories | ~250 kcal | ~280 kcal |
| Protein | ~26g | ~25g |
| Total Fat | ~17g | ~21g |
| Saturated Fat | ~7g | ~9g |
| Cholesterol | ~90 mg | ~97 mg |
Micronutrients
| Nutrient | Beef | Lamb |
| Iron | 2.6 mg (higher in liver) | 1.8 mg |
| Zinc | 4.0–5.0 mg | 4.0–4.5 mg |
| Vitamin B12 | 2.6 mcg | 2.7 mcg |
| Niacin (B3) | 5.0 mg | 6.5 mg |
| Riboflavin (B2) | 0.2 mg | 0.3 mg |
| Selenium | ~28 mcg | ~25 mcg |
Other Considerations
- Lamb tends to have slightly more saturated fat and calories.
- Beef usually provides more iron, which is especially important for women and athletes.
- Lamb can be richer in certain B vitamins, like niacin and riboflavin.
- Both are high in bioavailable protein and essential micronutrients.
- Grass-fed versions of both meats are higher in omega-3s and antioxidants like vitamin E.
Summary
- Beef is slightly higher in iron and lower in fat.
- Lamb is slightly higher in calories and some B vitamins.
- Both are nutrient-dense, and the differences are small unless you’re eating large amounts regularly or have specific dietary goals.
Would you like a visual comparison chart or breakdown by specific health goals (e.g. muscle building, heart health)?