Mimicking Mechanics: A Comparison of Meat and Meat Analogs

Abstract

The texture of meat is one of the most important features to mimic when developing meat analogs. Both protein source and processing method impact the texture of the final product. We can distinguish three types of mechanical tests to quantify the textural differences between meat and meat analogs: puncture type, rheological torsion tests, and classical mechanical tests of tension, compression, and bending. Here, we compile the shear force and stiffness values of whole and comminuted meats and meat analogs from the two most popular tests for meat, the Warner–Bratzler shear test and the double-compression texture profile analysis. Our results suggest that, with the right fine-tuning, today’s meat analogs are well capable of mimicking the mechanics of real meat. While Warner–Bratzler shear tests and texture profile analysis provide valuable information about the tenderness and sensory perception of meat, both tests suffer from a lack of standardization, which limits cross-study comparisons. Here, we provide guidelines to standardize meat testing and report meat stiffness as the single most informative mechanical parameter. Collecting big standardized data and sharing them with the community at large could empower researchers to harness the power of generative artificial intelligence to inform the systematic development of meat analogs with desired mechanical properties and functions, taste, and sensory perception.