Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090837›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics2021

Nutrient Composition of a Selection of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternative Products Available in the United States.

Lisa Harnack, Stephanie Mork, Sruthi Valluri, Cecily Weber, Kristine Schmitz, Jennifer Stevenson, Janet Pettit

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. The potential renal acid load of plant-based meat alternatives.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lisa HarnackDivision of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Electronic address: Harna001@umn.edu.
Stephanie MorkUS Agency for International Development Contractor, Office of Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition, Global Health Bureau, Global Health Technical Professionals, Public Health Institute, Washington.
Sruthi ValluriDivision of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Cecily WeberDivision of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Kristine SchmitzNutrition Coordinating Center, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Jennifer StevensonNutrition Coordinating Center, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Janet PettitNutrition Coordinating Center, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Funding

Minnesota Obesity Prevention Training (MnOPT)T32DK083250 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI KOTZ, CATHERINE M, LASKA, MELISSA N. · 2010 to 2024
$5.1M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK083250
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSales of plant-based foods intended as direct replacements for animal products have been growing in the United States. Little is known about the nutritional quality of these products.

objectiveOur aim was to evaluate the nutritional quality of a selection of plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the US marketplace and compare it with the nutrient content of ground beef.

designWe conducted an analysis of the food and nutrient composition information available for plant-based ground beef alternative products in the 2020 version of the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center Food and Nutrient Database. PARTICIPANT/

settingWe analyzed a selection of 37 plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the United States in 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Food product content of energy, macronutrients, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and selected additional food components was measured. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The percent Daily Value (DV) per 3-ounce cooked portion of each product was determined for nutrients with a DV. The median, interquartile range (IQR), minimum, and maximum nutrient values were calculated for all products by classification as vegan and nonvegan.

resultsThe median saturated fat content of the plant-based ground beef alternatives products as a %DV was 4% (IQR 2%). Vitamin and minerals for which median %DV values for plant-based ground beef alternative products were 10% or higher included folate (10%, IQR 10%), niacin (21%, IQR 7%), iron (10%, IQR 5%), phosphorous (10%, IQR 4%), sodium (18%, IQR 7%), manganese (20%, IQR 20%), and copper (24%, IQR 10%). The median dietary fiber content of the plant-based ground beef alternative products was 15% of the DV (IQR 6%). Most of the products contained less protein, zinc, and vitamin B12 than ground beef.

conclusionsThe major brands of plant-based ground beef alternative products examined in this study have nutritional strengths as well as some shortcomings. Additional research to examine a broader set of plant-based meat alternative products, such as those designed as substitutes for chicken and pork, is warranted.

Indexed as

Nutritive ValueDietary FatsDiet, VegetarianFood AnalysisFoods, SpecializedHumansMineralsNutrientsUnited StatesVitaminsDietary FatsMineralsNutrientsVitaminsPlant-based dietVegan foodsVegetarian foods

Identifiers

PMID34090837
PMCPMC8608686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.