Search

The number of plant‐based meat products on supermarket shelves around the world has grown in recent years however reproducing the sensory experience of eating meat remains a challenge. This study aims to evaluate the sensory gaps between animal and plant‐based meat products, specifically burger‐type products, from the Australian market. The sample set of 19 commercially available burgers comprises 8 animal‐based burgers prepared using beef, chicken, kangaroo, pork, or turkey and 11 high protein plant‐based burgers. Vegetable patties are beyond the scope of this study. A trained sensory panel (n = 14) determined the major differences in aroma, texture, flavor, and aftertaste between meat and meat analogues during oral processing, particularly those that may impact consumer acceptability. The animal‐based burgers scored high for meaty (aroma), meaty (flavor), and umami but not legume, vegetative, bitterness, and lingering spice attributes. They also received higher average scores for juiciness, fattiness, and final moistness than the plant‐based burgers but scored lower in cohesiveness. The plant‐based burgers scored high for legume and bitterness but not meaty (aroma), meaty (flavor), and umami attributes. Improving current products and designing new products with desirable sensory properties will enhance consumer acceptability and reinforce recent growth in the plant‐based meats market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We discuss food oral processing research over the last two decades and consider strategies for quantifying the food breakdown model, originally conceptualized by Hutchings and Lillford. The key innovation in their seminal 1988 paper was shifting the focus from intact food properties, measured in the lab, toward strategies to capture the dynamic nature of eating. This has stimulated great progress in the field, but a key aspect missing in oral processing research is the conversion of the Hutchings and Lillford breakdown path conceptual model into quantifiable parameters considered in the context of physiological factors such as saliva and oral movements. To address these shortcomings, we propose the following analysis: Hutchings's and Lillford's definitions of "Structure" and "Lubrication" are incomplete and they comprise many and varied physicochemical properties. We offer, here, a deeper analysis of each parameter, and propose strategies for researchers to consider in their quantification as an update of the Hutchings and Lillford Breakdown path. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oral processing of most foods is inherently destructive: solids are broken into particles before reassembly into a hydrated bolus while salivary enzymes degrade food components. In order to investigate the underlying physics driving changes during oral processing, we capture the transient rheological behaviour of a simulated potato chip bolus during hydration by a buffer with or without α-amylase. In the absence of amylase and for all oil contents and solids weight fractions tested, we find a collapse of the transient data when graphed according to simple Fickian diffusion. In the presence of amylase, we find effects on the transient and pseudo steady state bolus rheology. Within the first minute of mixing, the amylase degrades only ≈6% of the starch but that leads to an order of magnitude reduction in the bolus elasticity, as compared to the case without amylase. Thus, for an in vitro bolus, only a small amount of starch needs to be digested to have a large impact on the bolus rheology very soon after mixing.