Lamb, ground vs Chicken Breast

Chicken breast carries more protein than lamb — 22.5g per 100g against 16.6g, about 35% more — and far less fat: 1.93g against 23.4g, barely a twelfth as much. Those two figures answer most of what people come to this comparison for, and both are consistent in the USDA rows the page is built on.

The calorie column deserves a caveat, and it is better stated than glossed over. Chicken breast is listed here at 165 calories per 100g, but 22.5g of protein and 1.93g of fat come to about 107 calories by the standard 4-and-9 arithmetic — 165 matches the figure published for cooked breast rather than the raw row it sits in (FDC 2646170). The lamb row reconciles cleanly: 16.6g of protein and 23.4g of fat give 277 against a listed 282 (FDC 174370, ground, raw). A percentage calorie gap drawn from these two rows would therefore be measuring a labelling difference as much as a difference between the foods, so this page does not quote one. Judge them on protein and fat, which are measured the same way in both.

Lamb's real advantage in these rows is iron: 1.55mg per 100g against 0.35mg, about four and a half times as much. Past that, the choice is a fat one. Ground lamb is 23.4g of fat per 100g and chicken breast is under 2g, so lamb behaves like a rich ingredient you portion deliberately and chicken breast like a base you build a meal on. If the goal is protein with little else attached, chicken breast wins on the numbers; if it is a smaller amount of something with more character, lamb earns its place.