Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
InformationThis study evaluates the nutritional, anti-nutritional, antioxidant, and sensory properties of meat alternatives derived from wheat, gluten, soy, and pumpkin seeds.The raw materials included soybeans (Glycine max), pumpkin seeds (Cucurbita maxima), and wheat flour (Triticum aestivum L.), from which meat alternatives were prepared using soy curd, pumpkin seed curds (in ratios of 100%, 70:30, and 50:50 soy/pumpkin seeds) and wheat gluten.Moisture, ash, crude fiber, protein, fat, carbohydrate, and calorie contents were analyzed, along with screening for oxalate, phytate, and saponin contents.Additionally, antioxidant activities (DPPH and FRAP) and hedonic analysis were performed.The results showed varying contents of water (52.06% to 61.84%), protein (12.77% to 34.60%), fat (1.43% to 13.63%), and carbohydrates (50.11% to 76.31%) in the meat alternatives.Ash and calorie contents ranged between 1.85% and 5.83%, and 383.88 kcal and 450.24 kcal, respectively.No fiber was detected, while phytate and oxalate contents varied from 4.15% to 11.69% and 4.85% to 19.55%, respectively.Saponins were absent in the samples.The meat alternatives exhibited DPPH-scavenging activities with IC50 values between 140.56 g/L and 183.80 g/L, and ferric-reducing antioxidant power with IC50 values from 147.49 g/L to 166.21 g/L.Hedonic acceptability ranged from 56% to 98%, with taste being the most important descriptor, followed by aroma, texture, and appearance, as identified by perceptron artificial neural networks.Sensory discrimination analysis indicated that the meat alternatives shared the same sensory profile.Thus, the plant-based foods derived from wheat gluten and pumpkin seeds demonstrate their potential as viable meat alternatives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Foudjo et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: