The presence of milk in meals and products consumed daily is common and at the same time the adoption of a milk-free diet increases due to milk allergy, lactose intolerance, vegan diets, and others. Therefore, there is an increasing demand for plant-based beverages, which present variable and, sometimes, unknown nutritional characteristics. This study sought to compare the nutritional aspects of plant-based beverages used as substitutes for cow’s milk described in scientific studies. Therefore, we used a review of the scientific literature on PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Patents, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases. The inclusion criteria were scientific studies referring to plant-based beverage used as an alternative to cow’s milk; published in the English language; present data on the serving size, ingredients, and nutritional composition, containing at least data on energy and macronutrients of plant-based beverages. Ingredients and data on energy, macronutrients, and, if available, dietary fiber and some micronutrients of plant-based beverages were collected. Data were obtained from 122 beverages of 22 different matrices, with soy being the most used (27.87%, n = 34). The variation in the amount of nutrients found was 6–183 Kcal/100 mL for energy value; 0.00–22.29 g/100 mL for carbohydrate; 0.06–12.43 g/100 mL for protein; 0.00–19.00 g/100 mL for lipid; 0.00–4.40 g/100 mL for dietary fiber; 0.00–1252.94 mg/100 mL for calcium; 0.04–1.40 mg/100 mL for iron; 0.84–10,178.60 mg/100 mL for magnesium; 0.00–343.43 mg/100 mL for sodium. Salt was the most commonly found added ingredient in plant-based beverages. Some beverages have reached certain amounts of cow’s milk nutrients. However, studies have pointed out differences in their qualities/types. Thus, attention is needed when replacing milk with these alternatives.

Despite the growing demand for green banana (GB) products, there is no review study regarding their potential health benefits. We aimed to compare the health benefits among different GB products by a systematic review. We researched six electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) from inception to March 2019. We found 1009 articles in these databases. After duplicate removal, we screened 732 articles’ titles and abstracts, and selected 18 potentially relevant studies for full-text reading. We added five records from the reference list of the fully-read articles and seven suggested by the expert. Twelve articles were excluded. In the end, 18 studies were considered for this systematic review. Ten studies were conducted with green banana flour and eight with the green banana pulp/biomass. Most of the GB health benefits studied were related to the gastrointestinal symptoms/diseases, followed by the glycemic/insulin metabolism, weight control, and renal and liver complications associated to diabetes. Only one study did not confirm the health benefit proposed. It is necessary to standardize the GB dose/effect to different age groups and different health effects considering the GB variety and ripeness level. Further studies are necessary to present better detailing of GB product and their health effects considering all the raw-material characteristics.

Given the high cost of production of animal-based meats and the increase in the number of adepts of meatless diets, the need for plant-based meat substitutes is growing. In this prosperously growing market, there is a lack of knowledge about the nutritional value of these meat substitutes and their ingredients. This study aims to review the nutritional composition and ingredients of meat substitutes commercialized worldwide. An integrative review was performed with a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and 11 studies were selected to compose the sample of this review. Data on meat substitutes’ nutritional composition and ingredients from different categories were collected and analyzed. The results showed that meat substitutes commonly present lower energy values and higher amounts of carbohydrates and dietary fiber. Protein values varied according to the meat substitute category, with some showing a higher concentration than others, more specifically in substitutes for bovine meat. Higher values were found in the Pieces category and lower in Seafood substitutes. Unlike animal meat, vegan meat has a proportion of carbohydrates higher than protein in most samples, except for chicken substitutes. Meat substitutes presented similar total and saturated fat content compared to their animal-based counterparts. Higher amounts of fat were found in the “Various” category and lower in “Pieces”. Ingredients such as soy, pea, and wheat were the primary protein sources in meat substitutes, and vegetable oils were their primary fat source. Methylcellulose, various gums, and flavorings were the most used food additives. In general, meat substitutes presented high concentrations of sodium, possibly collaborating with an excessive sodium intake, highlighting the need for developing sodium-reduced or sodium-free alternatives. Most of the included samples did not describe the concentration of iron, zinc, and vitamin B12. Further studies are needed to develop meat substitutes with better nutritional composition, fulfilling the need for equivalent substitutes for animal-based meat.

This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the glycemic index (GI) of gluten-free bread (GFB) and its main ingredients. The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, using seven electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, gray literature research with Google Scholar, and patents with Google Patent tool), from inception to November 2020. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria evaluating 132 GFB samples. Five articles tested GI in vivo, eleven in vitro; and two studies tested both methods. The analysis showed that 60.7% (95% CI: 40.2–78.1%) of the samples presented high glycemic indexes, evidencing a high glycemic profile for GFB. Only 18.2% (95% CI: 11.7–27.2%) of the bread samples presented in the studies were classified as a low GI. Meta-analysis presented moderate/low heterogenicity between studies (I² = 61% and <1% for both high and low GIs) and reinforced the proportion of high GIs. Lower GIs were found in formulations based on Colocasia esculenta flour or enriched with fiber, yogurt and curd cheese, sourdough, psyllium, hydrocolloids, enzymes, fructans, and resistant starch, highlighting the efficacy of these ingredients to lower GFBs’ GI. GFB tends to present high GI, impacting the development of chronic diseases when consumed.

Nowadays, the world is experiencing an increased demand for gluten-free products associated with the high prevalence of gluten-related disorders (GRD). As this market thrives, bread stands out as the most demanded and consumed product, highlighting the need to evaluate its nutritional quality. In this sense, this cross-sectional study aimed to assess the ingredients, chemical composition, and glycemic index of gluten-free bread (GFB) commercialized nationwide in Brazil. The labels were analyzed according to their ingredients and composition. In addition, centesimal composition analysis (moisture, carbohydrates, protein, ash, lipid, and fiber) was performed using the official methods, as well as the in vivo glycemic index. Significant differences between manufacturing lots of each brand and between different gluten-free bread samples were found. There is a mismatch from what is stipulated by the Brazilian legislation between analytical data and the data described on sample labels. Samples showed predominantly refined starch and high glycemic index profile. Most samples (75%, n = 6) of the non-whole gluten-free bread (n = 8) presented high glycemic index (GI). From four whole food/multigrain gluten-free bread samples, three of them (75%) presented medium GI. However, two samples presented GI near the value to be considered high. The results suggest a lack of production control, impairing the gluten-free nutritional label as a reliable information source and tool for dietary control. Therefore, it is necessary to standardize the process of gluten-free bread production and labeling, as well as to improve the nutritional characteristics of these products, aiming the give accurate information to consumers and provide a healthier product beyond the sensory characteristics.

Chickpeas were already implemented as an ingredient in the making of gluten-free pasta; however, structural agents such as hydrocolloids and different flours were used in order to achieve satisfactory characteristics. Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop pasta dough utilizing only chickpeas as a flour source and to analyze its chemical, technological, and sensory characteristics. The development of gluten-free chickpea pasta used chickpeas (65.7%), egg whites (34.3%) and the control wheat pasta contained wheat flour (61.9%) and whole eggs (39.1%) for comparison. The chickpea pasta presented 37.3% less fat, 53.8% more protein, and 166.5% more dietary fiber. Chickpea pasta also presented good acceptance for every criterion, including texture and taste. In this manner, this study suggests that chickpeas can be used as a satisfactory substitute for wheat, without the use of any structure agents, increasing the amount of healthy options for individuals with gluten-related disorders.