Amla vs Wood Apple
Per 100 g, Amla has 23 kcal and 0.3 g protein, while Wood Apple has 78 kcal and 3.1 g protein.
Nutrition compared, per 100 g
Both foods are shown per 100 g so the numbers are directly comparable. A single serving of each is a different size, so serving-for-serving figures would not tell you much.
| Nutrient | Amla | Wood Apple | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories Fewer calories for the same weight | 23 kcal better | 78 kcal | 70% |
| Protein More protein helps with fullness and muscle | 0.3 g | 3.1 g better | 90% |
| Carbs Lower carbs suits low-carb and diabetic diets | 4.3 g better | 7.5 g | 43% |
| Fat Lower fat means lower calorie density | 0 g better | 3.6 g | 100% |
| Fiber More fibre improves fullness and digestion | 7.7 g better | 5.2 g | 33% |
| Sugar Less sugar means a gentler blood-sugar response | 3.3 g better | 3.8 g | 13% |
Which is better for weight loss?
Amla
Amla is the lighter choice at 23 kcal per 100 g against 78 for Wood Apple — about 70% fewer calories for the same weight on your plate. That does not make Wood Apple a bad food; it means the portion has to be smaller to fit the same calorie budget.
Which is better for muscle gain?
Wood Apple
Wood Apple is the stronger protein source, with 3.1 g per 100 g against 0.3 g for Amla. To match that from Amla you would have to eat roughly 10.3 times the volume, which is usually the limiting factor when you are trying to hit a protein target.
Amla vs Wood Apple — common questions
Data source: nutrition values are drawn from the Indian Nutrient Databank (INDB), Vijayakumar et al., Curr Dev Nutr 2024;8(7):103790, used under CC BY 4.0, and derived from the ICMR-NIN Indian Food Composition Tables. Values vary with recipe, oil used and regional style.
General information only, not medical advice. See our disclaimer.