Meat and plant-based alternatives are not the same nutritionally (although it may appear from the label). I study

Don't store avocado like this: it's dangerous

Meat and vegetable alternatives become more and more similar in terms of appearance and, in some cases, also in texture and taste. But on a nutritional level, what are the differences? A new study has investigated this.

Meat alternatives, such as burgers or vegetable meatballs, are increasingly present on the market globally and companies are improving their products to make them, day after day, "closer" to real meat. For this purpose, manufacturers add leghemoglobin, a soy molecule that carries iron, and extracts of red beet, berries and carrots to simulate blood.

The texture of the meat is favored by adding indigestible fibers such as methylcellulose while to increase the protein intake, vegetable proteins isolated from soy, peas or other vegetable sources are used. In some cases, plant alternatives are enriched with vitamin B12 and zinc to further increase the supply of useful nutrients.

The presence of all these ingredients makes plant alternatives seem essentially equivalent to meat but on closer inspection, according to the results of a new study published in Scientific Reports, this is not the case at all. Many other components of nutrition do not appear on the labels, and it is precisely by considering this aspect that the two types of products differ and a lot.

A Duke University research team has delved into the nutritional content of meat alternatives using a sophisticated tool known as 'metabolomics'. This measured i metabolites, building blocks of the body's biochemistry, crucial for energy conversion, signaling between cells, building and breaking down structures, and many other functions.

Eighteen samples of a popular plant-based alternative to meat in the US were compared with as many samples of ground beef (from grass-fed cattle on an Idaho ranch). The analysis on cooked meatballs found that 18 of the 171 metabolites measured varied between beef and plant-based meat substitutes.

Beef contained 22 metabolites which the plant substitute did not contain while the plant variants contained 31 metabolites not present in meat. The major distinctions have occurred in the amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols and types of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids found in these products.

This analysis has shown in practice some substantial differences between real meat and vegetable alternatives so much so that the conclusion of the study, without any kind of judgment on the matter, is that between meat and vegetable alternatives there are major differences from a nutritional point of view.

As Stephan van Vliet, postdoctoral researcher at the Duke Molecular Physiology Institute and lead researcher, said:

To consumers reading nutrition labels, they may seem nutritionally interchangeable. But if you look behind the scenes using metabolomics and look at the extended nutrient profiles, we've found that there are big differences between meat and a plant-based alternative to meat. (...) It is important that consumers understand that these products should not be seen as nutritionally interchangeable, but this it does not mean that one is better than the other.

Several metabolites useful for human health have been found exclusively or in greater quantities in beef, including creatine, spermine, anserine, cysteamine, glucosamine, squalene and the omega-3 fatty acid DHA but, as Stephan pointed out van Vliet:

Some people who follow a vegan diet (without animal products), can live a healthy life, it is very clear.

Additionally, the plant-based meat alternative contained several beneficial metabolites not found in beef such as phytosterols and phenols.

Follow us on Telegram | Instagram | Facebook | TikTok | Youtube

Fonte: Duke University / Scientific Reports