Nutritional profiling of plant‐based meat alternatives and ground beef

The objective of this study was to characterize the nutritional profile of plant‐based meat alternatives (PBMA) and ground beef (GB). Beyond Beef (BEY); Impossible Burger (IMP), a third available product of plant‐based protein, including SWEET EARTH, Incogmeato, Open Nature, and Good & Gather (G...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of food science 2024-12, Vol.89 (12), p.9230-9242
Main Authors: Hernandez, M. Sebastian, Coyle, Katherine, Siebecker, Matthew G., Woerner, Dale R., Brooks, J. Chance, Legako, Jerrad F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Amino acid composition
Amino acids
Amino Acids - analysis
Animals
Beef
Bioavailability
Cattle
Fatty acids
Fatty Acids - analysis
ground beef
Lauric acid
Lauric Acids
Linoleic acid
Meat
Meat Products - analysis
Meat Substitutes
minerals
Minerals - analysis
Nutrients
Nutritive Value
Phenylalanine
plant‐based meat
Red Meat - analysis
Vitamins
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The objective of this study was to characterize the nutritional profile of plant‐based meat alternatives (PBMA) and ground beef (GB). Beyond Beef (BEY); Impossible Burger (IMP), a third available product of plant‐based protein, including SWEET EARTH, Incogmeato, Open Nature, and Good & Gather (GEN); and two lean levels of GB (regular [80%–85% lean, regular ground beef] and Lean [>93% lean, lean ground beef, LGB]) were purchased from retail stores across the United States. Proximate composition, mineral content, fatty acid profile, amino acid profile, and B‐vitamin content were measured in raw products. Generally, PBMA had increased ash content which coincided with increased mineral concentration compared to GB, namely sodium, calcium, and zinc (p
ISSN:0022-1147
1750-3841
1750-3841
DOI:10.1111/1750-3841.17579