Background Andean grain flours increasingly enrich staple foods to raise their nutrient density, yet their incorporation darkens the product, increases firmness, and introduces bitter notes. The nutritional benefits and the technological and sensory penalties have not been synthesized across product categories and grains, which leaves formulators without transferable guidance. Scope and approach This review synthesizes the experimental evidence on the compromise between nutritional gain and sensory-textural cost when quinoa, amaranth, and cañihua replace conventional flours. A Scopus search retrieved 802 records, and citation searching added two more. After screening against four inclusion and six exclusion criteria and three full-text verification passes, 476 studies were retained. Each effect was expressed against the unsubstituted control of the same study, as the declared direction and as the median percentage change, and was related to product, grain, and substitution level with logistic models and a multiple factor analysis (MFA). Key findings and conclusions Quinoa appeared in 337 studies and amaranth in 181, whereas cañihua appeared in only 13, too few to synthesize its effects. Compared with the control in each study, protein rose by a median of 17.1% and increased in 74% of studies that reported a direction; dietary fiber rose by 55.9% (83%), ash by 28.6% (81%), and total phenolics by 83.7% (76%). Lightness fell by 8.8% (71%) and specific volume by 10.2%, whereas hardness had no dominant direction and depended on matrix type and substitution level rather than on the grain. Liking fell against the control in 32 of 38 product × grain × level cells, and in the multivariate analysis the cells with the largest compositional gains tended to lose the most liking. Formulators can expect consistent compositional gains and darkening, but the textural and hedonic response must be established for each product and level. Missing controls and dispersion measures were the main barriers to quantitative pooling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saldaña et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: