Logo Image
News|Articles|March 19, 2026

Gas Chromatography Analysis of Fatty Acid Profiles in Plant-Based vs. Traditional Beef Burgers

Author(s)John Chasse

Researchers utilized gas chromatography (GC) to evaluate and compare the fatty acid compositions of plant-based meat substitutes and traditional ground beef available on the market. Following homogenization and lipid extraction, the GC data revealed distinct fatty acid profiles between the two groups. The analysis demonstrated that most plant-based alternatives exhibited higher polyunsaturated fatty acid levels and more favorable nutritional indices—such as the unsaturation and hypocholesterolemic indices—compared to beef, though the researchers noted that the specific health implications rely heavily on the diverse types of oils used in each plant-based product.

In recent years, plant-based diets have gained popularity, resulting in the food industry responding with the introduction of a range of alternative products that significantly differ from whole-food, plant-based diets in terms of their composition and processing levels. Researchers at the University of Pécs (Hungary) aimed to compare the fatty acid composition and fatty acid-based nutritional quality indices of ground beef-based foods with those of their plant-based counterparts available in the Hungarian market. Following homogenization and lipid extraction, the fatty acid composition was analyzed by gas chromatography (GC). A paper based on this research was published in Frontiers in Nutrition.1

There have been previous studies which have focused on the protective effects resulting from the substitution of animal protein sources with plant-based sources against certain diseases and mortalities.2-5 The demand for plant-based meat substitutes (PBMS) continues to increase as consumers seek healthier, more sustainable, and ethical dietary alternatives.6,7 PBMS offer solutions to challenges that are connected to the production of traditional meat products and the negative health effects associated with excessive meat consumption.8

For this study, six plant-based and four beef hamburger patties were examined, along with one plant-based and one beef minced meat product, each with three distinct expiration dates. Following homogenization and lipid extraction, the fatty acid composition was analyzed by GC. Based on the fatty acid values, several nutritional indices were calculated, including the unsaturation index (UI), atherogenicity index, thrombogenicity index, and hypocholesterolemic/hypercholesterolemic index (hHI).1

The research revealed significant differences (p < 0.01) in fat content between plant-based and animal-based products, based on both label information and gravimetric measurements (plant-based: 10.25% [8.60%; 14.87%], animal-based: 19.67% [16.16%; 26.68%], median [Q1; Q3]). Distinct fatty acid composition profiles were identified between and within the product groups for both animal- and plant-based products. Except for one product, plant-based alternatives exhibited higher UI and hHI (UI: 129.62 [96.84; 146.10]; hHI: 50.13 [45.69; 54.14]) than beef-based products (UI: 8.18 [3.13; 11.59]; hHI: 1.35 [1.23; 1.43]).1

“The findings indicate,” write the authors of the paper,1 “that plant-based meat alternatives (except those containing coconut oil) have lower saturated and higher polyunsaturated fatty acid compositions than beef-based products, leading to more beneficial nutritional value.”

The research team points out that PBMS cannot be regarded as a uniform group due to the diverse types of oils used in each product. Furthermore, they state that the health implications remain uncertain, underscoring the need for further randomized clinical studies to explore the effects of substituting meat products with plant-based alternatives on human health.

Read More on Similar Topics

GC–MS Analysis Reveals Flavor Stability Challenges and Storage Solutions in Soy-Based Plant Meats
Comparing the Chemical Profiles of Plant-Based and Traditional Meats Using GC–MS-Based Metabolomics

References

  1. Koczka, V.; Marosvölgyi, T.;Szabó, Z. et al. Fatty Acid Composition of Ground-Beef Products and their Plant-Based Meat Substitutes Available in Hungary. Front Nutr. 2026, 13, 1732327. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1732327
  2. Song, M.; Fung, T. T.; Hu, F. B. et al. Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality. JAMA Intern Med. 2016, 176 (10), 1453-1463. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4182
  3. Naghshi, S.; Sadeghi, O.; Willett, W. C. et al. Dietary Intake of Total, Animal, and Plant Proteins and Risk of All Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality: Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. BMJ 2020, 370, m2412. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2412
  4. Neuenschwander, M.; Stadelmaier, J.; Eble, J. et al. Substitution of Animal-Based with Plant-Based Foods on Cardiometabolic Health and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. BMC Med. 2023, 21 (1), 404. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-03093-1
  5. Zhong, V. W.; Allen, N. B.; Greenland, P. et al. Protein Foods from Animal Sources, Incident Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality: A Substitution Analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2021, 50 (1), 223-233. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyaa205
  6. Jahn, S.; Furchheim, P.; Strässner, A-M. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Motivational Adoption Barriers and Solutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13271. DOI: 10.3390/su132313271
  7. Szenderák, J.; Fróna, D.; Rákos, M. Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods 2022, 11 (9), 1274. DOI: 10.3390/foods11091274
  8. Andreani, G.; Sogari, G.; Marti, A. et al. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities. Nutrients 2023, 15 (2), 452. DOI: 10.3390/nu15020452

Related Content