Skip to main content

Soy flour, full-fat, raw

Legumes Per 100 g · Per 100g serving
Data sources: 39 Foundation 44 SR Legacy
Contains: 🫘 Soy

Soy flour, full-fat, raw is a legume, containing 452 calories per 100g. It is an excellent source of Manganese, Copper and Iron, providing 137%, 121% and 119% of the Daily Value respectively. This legume is high in protein, rich in dietary fiber. Legumes are among the most nutrient-dense plant foods, providing protein, fiber, folate, iron, and potassium. They are a staple protein source in many traditional diets worldwide. Our database tracks 83 nutrients for this food, plus insulin index, environmental footprint data.

452
Calories
kcal
38.6
Protein
g
20.7
Fat
g
27.9
Carbs
g
9.6
Fiber
g

Top Nutrients

💎
Manganese
3.2 mg
137% DV
💎
Copper
1.1 mg
121% DV
💎
Iron
9.5 mg
119% DV

Data for 83 of 150 tracked nutrients

Nutrient Fingerprint

How this food scores across key nutrient categories, as a percentage of the daily recommended value per 100 g. Based on USDA DRIs for adults.

Complete Nutrient Profile

Macronutrients 9
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Water Foundation7.8g
0%
Calories Foundation452kcal
Energy (kJ) Foundation1,890kj
Protein Foundation38.6g
69%
Total Fat Foundation20.7g
Carbohydrate Foundation27.9g
22%
Fiber SR9.6g
25%
Total Sugars SR7.5g
Ash Foundation4.9g
Minerals 10
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Calcium Foundation258mg
26%
Iron Foundation9.5mg
119%
Magnesium Foundation254mg
64%
Phosphorus Foundation607mg
87%
Potassium Foundation1,860mg
55%
Sodium Foundation2.0mg
0%
Zinc Foundation3.8mg
34%
Copper Foundation1.1mg
121%
Manganese Foundation3.2mg
137%
Selenium Foundation14.3µg
26%
Vitamins 24
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Vitamin A (RAE) SR120µg
13%
Vitamin A (IU) SR6.0IU
Retinol SR0µg
Beta-Carotene SR72.0µg
Alpha-Carotene SR0µg
Beta-Cryptoxanthin SR0µg
Lycopene SR0µg
Lutein + Zeaxanthin SR0µg
Vitamin C SR0mg
Vitamin D SR0µg
Vitamin D (IU) SR0IU
Vitamin E SR1.9mg
13%
Vitamin K1 SR70.0µg
58%
Thiamin (B1) Foundation0.36mg
30%
Riboflavin (B2) Foundation0.36mg
28%
Niacin (B3) Foundation2.7mg
17%
Pantothenic Acid (B5) SR1.6mg
32%
Vitamin B6 Foundation0.34mg
26%
Folate SR345µg
86%
Folic Acid SR0µg
Folate (food) SR345µg
Folate (DFE) SR345µg
Vitamin B12 SR0µg
Choline SR191mg
35%
Fatty Acids 8
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Saturated Fat SR3.0g
Monounsaturated Fat SR4.6g
Polyunsaturated Fat SR11.7g
Trans Fat SR0g
Cholesterol SR0mg
Omega-3 EPA SR0g
Omega-3 DPA SR0g
Omega-3 DHA SR0g
Individual Fatty Acids 10
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Butyric Acid (4:0) SR0g
Caproic Acid (6:0) SR0g
Caprylic Acid (8:0) SR0g
Capric Acid (10:0) SR0g
Lauric Acid (12:0) SR0g
Myristic Acid (14:0) SR0.06g
Palmitic Acid (16:0) SR2.2g
Stearic Acid (18:0) SR0.74g
Linoleic Acid (18:2) SR10.3g
60%
Linolenic Acid (18:3) SR1.4g
Amino Acids 19
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Tryptophan Foundation0.45g
Threonine Foundation1.5g
Isoleucine Foundation1.7g
Leucine Foundation3.1g
Lysine Foundation2.1g
Methionine Foundation0.48g
Cystine SR0.56g
Phenylalanine Foundation2.1g
Tyrosine Foundation1.4g
Valine Foundation1.7g
Arginine Foundation2.9g
Histidine Foundation0.95g
Alanine Foundation2.1g
Aspartic Acid Foundation3.8g
Glutamic Acid Foundation6.8g
Glycine Foundation1.4g
Proline Foundation2.1g
Serine Foundation2.1g
Hydroxyproline Foundation0.21g
Other 3
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Caffeine SR0mg
Theobromine SR0mg
Alcohol SR0g

Nutrient Density Score

The NRF9.3 score measures overall nutritional quality per 100 kcal. It rewards 9 nutrients to encourage (protein, fiber, vitamins A, C, E, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium) and penalizes 3 to limit (saturated fat, added sugars, sodium). Higher is better; negative scores indicate the food is high in limit nutrients relative to its beneficial content.

65
NRF9.3 Score
Good · per 100 kcal
Poor (<0) Moderate Good Excellent (100+)

NRF9.3 index: Fulgoni et al. (2009), J Nutr 139(8). DVs based on FDA 2020 reference values.

Nutrient Interactions in This Food

Nutrients in this food that enhance or compete with each other during absorption.

✔ Synergies — nutrients that help each other

Dietary Fat + Vitamin A●●●

Vitamin A is fat-soluble and requires dietary fat for absorption. Adding fat to a meal significantly increases beta-carotene and retinol absorption.

Ribaya-Mercado et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 2007

Dietary Fat + Vitamin E●●●

Vitamin E is fat-soluble and absorbed alongside dietary fats via micelle formation in the small intestine. Low-fat diets reduce vitamin E absorption.

Traber, Free Radic Biol Med, 2007

Dietary Fat + Vitamin K●●●

Vitamin K is fat-soluble. Absorption increases significantly when consumed with dietary fat, particularly for phylloquinone (K1) from plant sources.

Gijsbers et al., Br J Nutr, 1996

Vitamin K + Calcium●●

Vitamin K activates osteocalcin and matrix GLA protein, which direct calcium into bones and away from soft tissues (arteries). Works synergistically with vitamin D.

Kidd, Altern Med Rev, 2010

Selenium + Vitamin E●●

Selenium (via glutathione peroxidase) and vitamin E work as complementary antioxidants. Selenium reduces peroxides while vitamin E prevents lipid peroxidation in membranes.

Combs, Br J Nutr, 2001

⚠ Antagonisms — nutrients that compete

Calcium vs Iron●●●

Calcium inhibits both heme and non-heme iron absorption when consumed in the same meal. The effect is dose-dependent, with significant inhibition at 300+ mg calcium.

Hallberg et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 1991

Zinc vs Copper●●●

High zinc intake induces metallothionein in enterocytes, which traps copper and blocks its absorption. Prolonged high-dose zinc can cause copper deficiency.

Prasad et al., JAMA, 1978; Fosmire, Am J Clin Nutr, 1990

Zinc vs Iron●●

Zinc and non-heme iron compete for the same intestinal transporter (DMT1). High doses of one can reduce absorption of the other when taken simultaneously.

Rossander-Hulten et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 1991

Calcium vs Magnesium●●

Very high calcium intake can reduce magnesium absorption by competing for shared intestinal transport pathways. A calcium:magnesium ratio above 2.6:1 may impair magnesium status.

Rosanoff et al., Nutr Rev, 2012

Fiber vs Iron●●

Phytates in high-fibre foods (whole grains, legumes) bind non-heme iron and reduce its bioavailability. Soaking, sprouting, and fermentation reduce phytate content.

Hurrell & Egli, Int J Vitam Nutr Res, 2010

Amino Acid Profile

Essential amino acid composition compared to the WHO/FAO adult reference pattern. The Amino Acid Score indicates protein quality — 100 means all essential amino acid requirements are met.

116
Amino Acid Score
Complete
Valine
Lowest Scoring
19
Amino Acids Tracked

✓ Complete protein — all essential amino acids meet or exceed WHO reference levels.

All Amino Acids (19)
Amino Acidg / 100gmg / g protein
Tryptophan0.4511.7
Threonine1.538.3
Isoleucine1.745.1
Leucine3.179.3
Lysine2.155.4
Methionine0.4812.6
Cystine0.5614.4
Phenylalanine2.155.7
Tyrosine1.436.3
Valine1.745.1
Arginine2.976.2
Histidine0.9524.6
Alanine2.155.4
Aspartic Acid3.897.4
Glutamic Acid6.8176.2
Glycine1.435.0
Proline2.155.2
Serine2.153.6
Hydroxyproline0.215.4

Fatty Acid Profile

Breakdown of fat types per 100g. A healthy fat profile favours unsaturated fats (mono + poly) and a balanced omega-3 to omega-6 ratio.

3.0g
Saturated
4.6g
Monounsaturated
11.7g
Polyunsaturated
Omega Fatty Acids
Linoleic acid (18:2 n-6)10.3 g

How Cooking Changes Nutrients

Estimated percentage of each nutrient retained after cooking, based on USDA retention factors for the “Legumes (2-2.5 hrs)” food category. Values of 100% mean no loss; lower values indicate nutrients lost to heat, water, or oxidation.

Source: USDA Table of Nutrient Retention Factors, Release 6 (2007). Retention values are category-level averages — actual retention depends on cooking time, temperature, and water volume.

USDA Retention Factors

Insulin Response

The Insulin Index (II) measures the actual insulin response to food on a scale where white bread = 100. Unlike the Glycemic Index (which only measures blood sugar), the II captures the full hormonal response — including the effect of protein and fat on insulin secretion. This is why high-protein foods like meat and dairy can have significant insulin scores despite having low or zero GI values.

33
Insulin Index
Moderate Insulin Response
Insulin Index Scale 33
0 Low ≤30 Mod ≤60 High ≤100 120
Macro Model ●● Estimated from macronutrient composition (R²=0.49)

Source: Holt et al. 1997; Bao et al. 2016; Bell 2014

Environmental Impact

Environmental footprint per kilogram of food produced. Data represents the global average for the “Other Pulses” category.

1.8
kg CO₂e / kg
Low Impact
15.6
m² land / kg
Land Use
734
L water / kg
Water Use
9.8
g SO₂e / kg
Acidification
How this compares (GHG emissions)
Potatoes (0.5)Chicken (9.9)Beef (99.5)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions1.8 kg CO₂e / kg
Land Use15.6 m² / kg
Water Use734 L / kg
Eutrophication18.1 g PO₄e / kg
Acidification9.8 g SO₂e / kg
⚠️ Important context about this data
  • Global averages: These figures are production-weighted averages from a meta-analysis of ~38,700 farms across 119 countries (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Actual impact varies enormously by farming method, geography, and supply chain.
  • System boundary: Cradle-to-retail only — does not include consumer transport, home cooking energy, or food waste.
  • Soil carbon not included: This data does not account for soil carbon sequestration. Some argue that well-managed regenerative grazing partially offsets ruminant emissions; however, full lifecycle accounting — including methane, land-use change, and the opportunity cost of using land for grazing vs. reforestation — typically makes the net footprint of ruminant meat higher, not lower. This is especially relevant in temperate grassland regions like Ireland.
  • Not gospel: This data is informational and illustrative. It is useful for understanding relative magnitudes, but should not be treated as precise measurements for any individual product or farm.

Source: Poore & Nemecek (2018), Science 360(6392). Meta-analysis of ~38,700 farms, 119 countries, 46 product categories.

Global Supply: Pulses

Top 10 countries by per capita supply of the “Pulses” food group (kcal/capita/day, 2023). This is food group–level data from FAO Food Balance Sheets, not specific to this individual food.

1.
Niger
450
2.
Burkina Faso
290
3.
Rwanda
273
4.
Ethiopia
199
5.
Norway
195
6.
Mali
181
7.
Kenya
175
8.
El Salvador
172
9.
Djibouti
169
10.
Kazakhstan
167

Global Supply Trend (1961–2023)

+2%
1961: 58 kcal2023: 59 kcal

Source: FAO Food Balance Sheets (2023). Supply = production + imports − exports − waste, converted to kcal/capita/day.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many calories are in Soy flour, full-fat, raw?

Soy flour, full-fat, raw contains 452 kcal per 100 grams, making it a calorie-dense food. The energy comes from 38.6g of protein (34% of calories), 20.7g of fat (41%), and 27.9g of carbohydrates (25%). Fat is the primary energy source.

What is Soy flour, full-fat, raw most nutritious for?

The standout nutrient in Soy flour, full-fat, raw is Manganese, providing 3.2 mg per 100g (137% of the Daily Value). It is also a notable source of Copper (121% DV). Our database tracks 83 individual nutrients for this food, allowing detailed comparison across vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids.

Is Soy flour, full-fat, raw high in protein?

With 38.6g per 100 grams, Soy flour, full-fat, raw is a high-protein food. Protein accounts for 34% of its total calories, making it suitable for diets focused on protein intake.

How much fiber is in Soy flour, full-fat, raw?

Yes, Soy flour, full-fat, raw is rich in dietary fiber with 9.6g per 100 grams. The daily recommended intake is 25-38g, so a serving contributes meaningfully toward that goal. Dietary fiber supports digestive health and is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

What is the insulin index of Soy flour, full-fat, raw?

Soy flour, full-fat, raw has a moderate insulin response (II: 33) (estimated from macronutrient composition) on the insulin index scale (white bread = 100). This is a typical insulin response for most mixed foods. Note that the insulin index can differ substantially from the glycemic index — dairy products and high-protein foods often have higher insulin responses than their GI would suggest.