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
Fatty acids:
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
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