Back

The Burger Battle: The Future is Blended

Koosis, A. O.; Gardner, C. D.; Kuhl, E.

2026-06-22 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.06.17.732995 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Texture is one of the major barriers to acceptance of sustainable protein products, yet the relationship between instrumental texture and consumer perception remains poorly understood. Here we combined consumer sensory evaluation and texture profile analysis to identify the factors that drive burger acceptance across blended, animal-based, and plant-based formulations. A total of 472 diners evaluated beef-mushroom (n = 171), turkey (n = 100), bean (n = 100), and pea (n = 101) burgers served in Stanford University dining halls, while texture profile analysis quantified physical texture (n = 10 per product). The beef-mushroom burger achieved the highest ratings for meatiness (77.0/100), tastiness (69.4/100), and moistness (61.8/100), and 78% of consumers rated its moistness as just-about-right. Although the pea burger exhibited mechanical properties similar to the beef-mushroom burger, including indistinguishable cohesiveness values (0.53 vs. 0.53), it received substantially lower ratings for meatiness (56.1 vs. 77.0), indicating that mechanical similarity alone does not ensure consumer acceptance. Across products, moistness emerged as the primary sensory limitation, with 58% of turkey consumers and 46% of bean consumers reporting insufficient moisture. Cohesiveness showed the strongest association with perceived meatiness (r = 0.82). These findings demonstrate that successful burger reformulation requires more than mechanical matching; products must reproduce the moisture, flavor, and eating experience associated with meat. Blended burgers may represent the most practical near-term strategy for reducing meat consumption without compromising eating quality.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Food Research International
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
36.9%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.9%
50% of probability mass above
3
Frontiers in Nutrition
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.6%
5
Appetite
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
Physiology & Behavior
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
7
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.9%
8
Chemical Senses
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
9
Food & Function
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
11
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
12
The Journal of Nutrition
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
13
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
14
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.9%
15
Protein Science
246 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
16
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
17
Food Chemistry
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
18
Acta Biomaterialia
92 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
19
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.5%
20
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
21
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%