Mycoprotein

5/9/2011

Mycoprotein as a Novel Nutritious Food Source HUEC 7011 Michael Zanovec

Outline • Background • Production • Composition • Effects on satiety

1

5/9/2011

The Roots of Mycoprotein • 1960’s: search for microbial protein sources began • Fusarium venenatum identified in the UK – 3 years of screening ~3,000 fungi; selected as the best fungus for product development – 12 years researching the safety of the organism

• 1985: MAFF approves sale of mycoprotein in UK – Marlow Foods, Inc. formed – Quorn™ brand name launched

• 2002: FDA approval; Quorn™ launches in US Wiebe, (2002); www.mycoproteineducation.com

MYCOPROTEIN PRODUCTION PROCESS

F. venenatum → mycoprotein →

Wiebe (2002)

2

5/9/2011

Nutritional Assessment • F. venenatum mycoprotein – ~44% protein (Wiebe, 2002) – NPU: 75% (same as cow’s milk) (Ingram, 2002) – All essential AA’s present (Wiebe, 2002) – High fiber content from cell wall (Ingram, 2002) • 35% chitin • 65% β-glucans

– 6/100 g fiber content (Williamson et al., 2006) – Low fat – No cholesterol

Protein Quality Assessment • Miller & Dwyer (2001) – FAO/WHO method •

Nutritional analysis of mycoprotein

•

Essential AA content

•

Protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS)

3

5/9/2011

Nutritional Analysis of mycoprotein Analysis (typical values g/100 g) Nutrient

Dry

Fresh

Water

0

75

Protein (‐aaN x 6.22)

48

12

Crude protein (total N x 6.25)

56

14

Fat

12

3

16:0

1.6

0.40

18:0

0.3

0.08

18:1

1.4

0.35

18:2

4.3

1.08

18:3

1.0

0.25

Fatty acids:

Dietary fiber

25

6

Carbohydrate

12

3

Energy (kcal/100 g)

348

87

Adapted from Miller & Dwyer (2001)

Essential AA content of mycoprotein

4

5/9/2011

PDCAAS of mycoprotein

Effects on Satiety • Previous literature (Slavin, 2007) – Burley et al. (1993) • 18 subjects consumed two meals (mycoprotein vs. control) differing only in fiber content (11 g vs. 3 g) • Mycoprotein meal decreased motivation to eat 4-4.5 hrs. after lunch, and caused an 18% reduction in energy intake at dinner meal

– Turnbull et al. (1993) • 13 female subjects provided one of two isocaloric meals (mycoprotein or chicken) • Desire to eat 3 hrs. after and prospective consumption rating was significantly lower in mycoprotein group • Energy intake ↓ by 24% on day of testing and by 16.5% the following day

5

5/9/2011

Effects on satiety • Williamson et al. (2006) – Purpose: to test 3 hypotheses • A preload of mycoprotein and tofu consumed before lunch will have a greater effect on satiety when compared to chicken • The mycoprotein and tofu preloads are not associated with eating more food at dinner • Subjective ratings of satiety and hunger 24 hrs. after each test would not differ from each other

Study Design • 2 pilot studies: 1. to develop three isocaloric pasta dishes similar in taste, smell, & texture 2. to determine portion sizes of preloads and time to ingest

• Within-subjects design • 3 test days w/ at least 1-day b/w • Primary response variables included: • Amt. of food consumed at subsequent test lunch • Amt. of food consumed/macronutrient selection at dinner • VAS ratings for hunger and satiety

6

5/9/2011

Participants • 42 healthy pre-menopausal women aged 18-50 classified as overweight (BMI 25 – 29.9 kg/m2) – Exclusion criteria: • Diagnosed diabetics or other chronic dz • Participants with irregular menstrual cycles • Participants on oral contraceptives and prescription medications • Smokers • If reported taking herbal supplements, asked to discontinue • Reported allergies to test foods • Eating Inventory (EI) scores > 14 for dietary restraint, > 12 for disinhibition, and > 12 for perceived hunger

Instruments • Visual analog scales (VAS) • Subjective assessment of food intake behavior • Participants asked a set of questions at specific intervals throughout the test days Hunger: how hungry do you feel at this moment? Desire to eat: how strong is your desire to eat at this moment? Fullness: how full does your stomach feel at this moment? Motivation to eat: how much food do you think you could eat at this moment? – Thirst: how thirsty do you feel at this moment? – – – –

• The universal eating monitor (UEM) • Hidden scale to monitor rate of food intake following preload

• The macronutrient self-selection paradigm (MSSP) • Tests for compensation of food intake at dinner meal • Individualized test consisting of 18 foods – 2x3 design: buffet-style meal w/ foods high/low in fat and simple sugar, complex CHOs, and protein composition. – Assessment of intake of foods with a specific macronutrient content

7

5/9/2011

Procedures • Consume entire breakfast (30:60:10 ratio) • Consume entire preload 4 hrs. later • Consume up to 4 ham sandwiches ad libitum 20 minutes later • Consume MSSP dinner meal 4 ½ hrs. later ad libitum

Mycoprotein contained twice the fiber, half the water as tofu, the least amount of fat, and the most carbohydrates and protein

Williamson et al., (2006)

8

5/9/2011

Results • Mycoprotein and tofu preloads had a greater effect on satiety compared to chicken preload – Less energy consumed 20 min. following preload

• No compensation effect observed • VAS ratings of hunger and satiety did not differ from each other

Discussion/Conclusion • Mycoprotein has been extensively tested and is safe for human consumption • Mycoprotein is high in fiber and high-quality protein, low in carbohydrates and saturated fat, and contains no cholesterol • Mycoprotein may be more satiating than chicken, with less fat and more fiber

9