The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Edible Insects versus Meat—Nutritional Comparison: Knowledge of Their Composition Is the Key to Good Health
Open accessAbstract
Recently, attention has been drawn to the fact that increasing the consumption of edible insects may positively impact the state of the natural environment and reduce the problem of malnutrition in large parts of society. Indeed, insects are seen as an alternative to traditional meat products, primarily meat. This article aimed to compare the nutritional value of edible insects and meat. Based on tables of composition and nutritional value and on the licensed computer program Diet 6D, data on the nutritional value of 10 commonly consumed meat types were compiled. Based on a literature review, data on the nutritional value of seven commercially available edible insect species were collected and collated. There was a comparison of 100 g of edible insects with 100 g of meat (fresh weight). In addition, the atherogenic index thrombogenic index, the hypocholesterolemic/hypercholesterolemic ratio, and the nutritional quality index were calculated. It was found that both meat and insects are rich in nutrients, including those considered essential for the proper development and functioning of the human body. At the same time, it has been shown that the content of individual nutrients in both insects and meat varies significantly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coronary heart disease: seven dietary factors
Ulbricht, T. L. V., & Southgate, D. A. T. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)91846-m · Cited by 3,623
Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects
Rumpold, B. A., & Schlüter, O. K. (2013) · Molecular Nutrition & Food Research · doi:10.1002/mnfr.201200735 · Cited by 1,796
Effect of genotype, feeding system and slaughter weight on the quality of light lambs
Santos-Silva, J., Bessa, R. J. B., & Santos-Silva, F. (2002) · Livestock Production Science · doi:10.1016/s0301-6226(02)00059-3 · Cited by 956
Oonincx, D. G. A. B., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051145 · Cited by 925
How Muscle Structure and Composition Influence Meat and Flesh Quality
Listrat, A., Lebret, B., Louveau, I., Astruc, T., Bonnet, M., Lefaucheur, L., Picard, B., & Bugeon, J. (2016) · The Scientific World Journal · doi:10.1155/2016/3182746 · Cited by 872
EFSA Scientific Committee (2015) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4257 · Cited by 804
Potential and challenges of insects as an innovative source for food and feed production
Rumpold, B. A., & Schlüter, O. K. (2013) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2012.11.005 · Cited by 782
Complete nutrient composition of commercially raised invertebrates used as food for insectivores
Finke, M. D. (2002) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.10031 · Cited by 781
Edible Insects in a Food Safety and Nutritional Perspective: A Critical Review
Belluco, S., Losasso, C., Maggioletti, M., Alonzi, C. C., Paoletti, M. G., & Ricci, A. (2013) · Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12014 · Cited by 708
Huxley, R. R., Ansary‐Moghaddam, A., Clifton, P., Czernichow, S., Parr, C. L., & Woodward, M. (2009) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.24343 · Cited by 652
Metadata
- Authors
- Orkusz, A.
- Venue
- Nutrients
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-04-06
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1207
- ISSN
- 2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3144749664
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 69
- FWCI
- 29.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Edible Insects versus Meat—Nutritional Comparison: Knowledge of Their Composition Is the Key to Good Health. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/nu13041207
- The paper
- Orkusz, A. (2021). Edible Insects versus Meat—Nutritional Comparison: Knowledge of Their Composition Is the Key to Good Health. Nutrients. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041207
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.