Viabilidade econômica versus nutricional: comparação do potencial antioxidante de barras proteicas de diferentes custos de produção

Abstract

Foods with antioxidant properties may help prevent chronic noncommunicable diseases (CNCDs). These properties can be obtained through ordinary and economically accessible foods, and there is no need to spend on high-cost foods widely advertised by the industry as foods with functional / therapeutic properties. Food bars are options for the incorporation of these ingredients, because they are practical snacks. These sources of protein are currently the ones with the highest demand in the market. Thus, the present study aimed to develop a protein bar with antioxidant properties, made with economically accessible ingredients and compare its antioxidant potential to that of another protein bar developed with more expensive ingredients compared to the first one. The bars were characterized as proximate composition, minerals, total content of carotenoids and phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties. Sensory acceptance and preference, and the influence of information: price, nutritional value and ingredient list of each bar were evaluated, in the acceptance of the same. For this stage, two sessions of the acceptance test were performed, one being without and the other with the information. Finally, it was evaluated which factors are considered of greater importance in the choice of a product and characterized the habit of reading the nutritional information and the health appeals of the participants of the sensorial test. It was verified that the upper cost (CS) and lower cost (CI), presented, respectively: 30,5% and 30,0% of carbohydrate, 21,0% and 24,0% of humidity, 20, 5% and 22.0% protein, 19.5% and 16.5% dietary fiber, 6.0% and 5.50% lipid, 2.5% and 2.0% ash and 259.5 Kcal / 100g (89Kcal / serving (34g)) and 255.0Kcal / 100g (87.5Kcal / serving (34g)). Both bars can be classified as food sources of protein and fiber, and low content of total fat. The CI bar presented a higher value of total carotenoids (3.33 μg / g) than that of the CS bar (1.80 μg / g) and the same was observed for total phenolics, with the CI bar showing 349.19 mg EAG / 100 g and the CS bar 260.38 mgEAG / 100g. As for the antioxidant potential, by the ABTS method, the potential of the CI bar was almost double (703.18 μM trolox / g) as presented by the CS bar (385.65 μM trolox / g); by the β-carotene / linoleic acid method, this difference was double, with the CI bar exhibiting 94.63% oxidation protection and the CS bar 33.39%. By the FRAP method, there was no statistical difference, with the IC bar presented (661,70 μM ferrous sulphate / g) and CS bar (609.78 μm ferrous sulphate / g). The bars were sensorially accepted and equally preferred, and the information (nutritional value, list of ingredients and price) did not influence the acceptance. The sensorial aspects were classified as the most important factors in the choice of a product and the habit of reading the nutrition information was low. It is concluded that it is possible to develop protein bars with antioxidant properties, sensorially accepted and economically viable, and that cost is not directly related to greater biological benefits, having the lower cost bar presented higher antioxidant potential than the upper cost bar.