NUTRITIONAL FORMULATIONS COMPRISING A PEA PROTEIN ISOLATE

Abstract

The present invention relates to a nutritional formulation containing a pea protein isolate, characterized in that the pea protein isolate: contains between 0.5 and 2% of free amino acids, has a viscosity: from 13 to 16?10.sup.?3 Pa.Math.s. at a shear rate of 10 s.sup.?1, from 10 to 14?10.sup.?3 Pa.Math.s. at a shear rate of 40 s.sup.?1, and from 9.8 to 14?10.sup.?3 Pa.Math.s. at a shear rate of 600 s.sup.?1, has a solubility: from 30 to 40% in pH zones from 4 to 5 from 40 to 70% in pH zones from 6 to 8.

The invention also relates to the use of this nutritional formulation as a single protein source of as a food supplement, intended for infants, children and/or adults.

Claims

1. A nutritional formulation containing a pea protein isolate, characterized in that the pea protein isolate: contains between 0.5 and 2% of free amino acids, has a viscosity at 20? C.: from 11 to 18?10.sup.?3 Pa.Math.s. at a shear rate of 10 s.sup.?1, from 9 to 16?10.sup.?3 Pa.Math.s. at a shear rate of 40 s.sup.?1, and from 8 to 16?10.sup.?3 Pa.Math.s. at a shear rate of 600 s.sup.?1, has a solubility: from 30 to 40% in pH zones from 4 to 5. from 40 to 70% in pH zones from 6 to 8.

2. The formulation as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the pea protein isolate has a digestibility expressed according to the Coefficient of Digestive Use (CDU) of between 93.5 and 95%.

3. The formulation as claimed in either of claims 1 and 2, characterized in that the pea protein isolate has a degree of hydrolysis (DH) of between 5 and 10%.

4. The formulation as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that the pea protein isolate is presented, according to the SYMPHID test, as a protein of rapid viscosity, reflecting rapid duodenal assimilation of the constituent amino acids of said isolate.

5. The formulation as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 4, in which the pea protein isolate has been pasteurized at high temperature for a short time before being dried by atomization.

6. The formulation as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 5, in which the pea protein isolate represents 0.1-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, 70-80%, 80-90% or 90-100% by weight of the total protein in the nutritional formulation.

7. The formulation as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 6, also comprising at least one milk protein.

8. The nutritional formulation as claimed in claim 7, in which the formulation is in powder form and comprises at least one pea protein isolate and at least one milk protein, in which the milk protein represents at least 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 45 or 50% by weight relative to the total weight of protein in the nutritional formulation in powder form.

9. A process for preparing a nutritional formulation in powder form comprising a pea protein isolate as claimed in any one of claims 1-8, comprising the steps of: preparing a base powder comprising at least carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals; dry-mixing, into the base powder, a pea protein isolate.

10. The process as claimed in claim 9, in which the base powder comprises milk protein, preferably at least 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 45 or 50% by weight relative to the total weight of protein in the nutritional formulation in powder form.

11. The process as claimed in claim 10, in which the pea protein isolate is dried by atomization and pasteurized at high temperature and for a short time before being dry-mixed into the base powder.

12. The process as claimed in claim 11, in which the pea protein isolate is pasteurized at high temperature and for a short time at a temperature ranging from 130? C. to 150? C. for a time from about 1 second to about 30 seconds.

13. The formulation as claimed in any one of claims 1-8, for use as a single protein source of as a food supplement, intended for infants, children and/or adults.

14. The formulation as claimed in claim 13, the formulation being: a beverage in powder form to be reconstituted or a ready-to-drink beverage, a beverage for dietetic nutrition (sports, slimming) or for clinical nutrition, or a dessert cream in clinical nutrition, a nutritional liquid administered enterally, a fermented milk of yoghurt type (stirred, Greek, drinking, etc.), a dairy/plant-based beverage, a dairy/plant-based cream (such as coffee whitener), iced dessert or sorbet, a biscuit, muffin, griddle cake or nutritional bar, a protein-enriched bread or gluten-free bread, high-protein cereals, obtained by extrusion cooking.

15. The formulation as claimed in claim 14, in which the pea protein isolate represents: between 40 and 100%, preferably between 50 and 100%, of the total protein in the nutritional formulation in powder form, between 0.1% and 100% of the total protein for the ready-to-donk beverages for clinical nutrition and slimming, and between 52% and 100% of the total protein for the ready-to-drink beverages for sports nutrition, a between 0.1% and 100% of the total protein for the fermented milks of yoghurt type, between 0.1% and 100% of the total protein for the dairy beverages, between 0.1% and 100% of the total protein for the dairy creams, iced desserts or sorbets, more particularly between 60 and 100% of the total protein for the coffee whiteners, a between 5% and 100% of the total protein for the biscuits, muffins, griddle cakes and nutritional bars, between 5% and 100% of the total protein for the protein-enriched breads or gluten free breads, between 5% and 100% of the total protein for the high-protein cereals, obtained by extrusion cooking.

16. The use of the nutritional formulation as claimed in any one of claims 1-8, as a single protein source or as a food supplement, intended for infants, children and/or adults.

Description

DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

[0417] FIG. 1: Particle size distribution of the emulsion which forms the nutritional formulations for clinical nutrition according to the invention

[0418] FIG. 2: Sensory analysis of powder mixes formulated with pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention

[0419] FIG. 3: Sensory analysis of ready-to-drink beverages for clinical nutrition

[0420] FIG. 4: Monitoring of the viscosity during the in vitro digestion of the pea protein isolates according to the invention

[0421] FIG. 5: Solubility profile of the pea protein isolates as a function of the pH

[0422] FIG. 6: Sensory analysis of ready-to-drink beverages for sports

[0423] FIG. 7: Sensory analysis of dessert creams for clinical nutrition

[0424] FIG. 8: Size distribution of the fat globules of the emulsion prepared with 100% milk protein for an iced dessert preparation

[0425] FIG. 9: Size distribution of the fat globules of the emulsion prepared with 50% milk protein and 50% pea protein NUTRALYS? S85F for an iced dessert preparation

[0426] FIG. 10: Size distribution of the fat globules of the emulsion prepared with 50% milk protein and 50% pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention for an iced dessert preparation

[0427] FIG. 11: Size distribution of the fat globules of the emulsion prepared with 50% milk protein and 50% pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention for an iced dessert preparation

[0428] FIG. 12: melting profile of vegan ice creams prepared with the pea protein isolates according to the invention

[0429] FIG. 13: Sensory analysis of iced desserts

[0430] FIG. 14: solubility of the pea protein isolates as a function of the pH in comparison with sodium caseinates

[0431] FIG. 15: Sensory analysis of stirred yoghurtsTaste Aspects

[0432] FIG. 16: Sensory analysis of stirred yoghurtsTexture Aspects

[0433] FIG. 17: Sensory analysis of strawberry-flavored dairy beverages: taste aspect

[0434] FIG. 18: Sensory analysis of strawberry-flavored dairy beverages: texture aspect

[0435] FIG. 19: Viscosity analysis of chocolate muffin doughs

[0436] FIG. 20: Viscosity analysis of griddle cake batters

[0437] FIG. 21: Digestibility analysis by monitoring the viscosities using the SIMPHYD device from NIZO.

[0438] The invention will be understood more clearly with the aid of the following examples which are intended to be illustrative and nonlimiting.

EXAMPLES

Materials and Methods

Measurement of the DH (Degree of Hydrolysis)

[0439] This, measurement is based on the method for determining the amino nitrogen on proteins and protein isolates according to the invention with the MEGAZYME kit (reference K-PANOPA) and calculation of the degree of hydrolysis.

Principle:

[0440] The amino nitrogen groups of the free amino acids of the sample react with N-acetyl-L-cysteine and o-phthalyldialdehyde (OPA) to form isoindole derivatives.

[0441] The amount of isoindole derivative formed during this reaction is stoichiometric with the amount of free amino nitrogen. It is the isoindole derivative that is measured by the increase in absorbance at 340 nm.

Procedure:

[0442] Introduce an accurately weighed test sample P* of the sample to be analyzed into a 100 ml beaker. (This fest sample will be from 0.5 to 5.0 g as a function of the amino nitrogen content of the sample.)

[0443] Add about 50 ml of distilled water, homogenize and transfer into a 100 ml measuring cylinder, add 5 ml of 20% SDS and make up to the volume with distilled water, stir for 15 minutes on a magnetic stirrer at 1000 rpm.

[0444] Dissolve 1 tablet of flask 1 of the Megazyme kit in 3 ml of distilled water and stir until fully dissolved. Provide one tablet per test.

[0445] This solution No. 1 is to be prepared extemporaneously.

[0446] The reaction takes place directly in the spectrophotometer cuvettes.

Blank:

[0447] Introduce 3.00 ml of solution No. 1 and 50 ?l of distilled water.

Standard:

[0448] Introduce 3.00 ml of solution No. 1 and 50 ?l of flask 3 of the Magazyme kit.

Sample:

[0449] Introduce 3.00 ml of solution No. 1 and 50 ?l of the sample preparation.

[0450] Mix the cuvettes and read the absorbance measurements (A1) for the solutions after about 2 minutes on the spectrophotometer at 340 nm (spectrophotometer equipped with cuvettes with a 1.0 cm optical path, which can measure at a wavelength of 340 nm, and verified according to the procedure described in the manufacturer's technical manual related thereto).

[0451] Start the reactions immediately by adding 100 ?l of the OPA solution flask 2 of the Megazyme kit to the spectrophotometer cuvettes.

[0452] Mix the cuvettes and place them in darkness for about 20 minutes.

[0453] Next, read the absorbance measurements for the blank, the standard and the samples on the spectrophotometer at 340 nm.

Calculation Method:

[0454] The content of free amino nitrogen, expressed as a mass percentage of product per se, is given by the following formula:

[00001]$\begin{array}{c}\left[{\mathrm{NH}}_2\%\mathrm{crude}\right]=\frac{\left(?A_{\mathrm{sample}}-?A_{\mathrm{blank}}\right)?3.15?14.01?V?100}{6803?0.05?1000?m}\\ =\frac{\left(?A_{\mathrm{sample}}-?A_{\mathrm{blank}}\right)?12.974?V}{m?1000}\end{array}$ [0455] in which: ?A=A2?A1 [0456] V=volume of the flask [0457] m=mass of the test sample in g [0458] 6803=extinction coefficient of the isoindole derivative at 340 nm (in L.Math.mol.sup.?1 cm.sup.?1). [0459] 14:01=molar mass of nitrogen (in g.Math.mol.sup.?1) [0460] 3.15=final volume in the cuvette (in ml) [0461] 0.05=test sample in the cuvette (in ml)

[0462] The degree of hydrolysis (DH) is given by the formula:

[00002]$\mathrm{DH}=\frac{\mathrm{Protein}\mathrm{nitrogen}\left(\%\right)}{\mathrm{Amino}\mathrm{nitrogen}\left(\%\right)?100}$ [0463] in which the protein nitrogen is determined according to the DUMAS method according to standard ISO 16634.

Measurement of the Solubility in Water at Various pH Values

[0464] This measurement is based on diluting the sample in distilled water, centrifuging it and analyzing the supernatant.

Procedure:

[0465] Introduce 150 g of distilled water at a temperature of 20? C.?2? C. into a 400 ml beaker, mix with a magnetic bar and add precisely 5 g of the test sample.

[0466] Adjust the pH, if necessary, to the desired value with 0.1 N NaOH.

[0467] Make up the content with water to 200 g.

[0468] Mix for 30 minutes at 1000 rpm and centrifuge for 15 minutes at 3000 g.

[0469] Collect 25 g of the supernatant.

[0470] Introduce into a predried and tared crystallizing dish.

[0471] Place in an oven at 103? C.?2? C. for 1 hour.

[0472] Next, place in a desiccator (with dehydrating agent) to cool to room temperature, and weigh.

[0473] The content of soluble solids, expressed as a weight percentage, is given by the following formula:

[00003]$\frac{\left(m1-m2\right)?\left(200+P\right)?100}{P1?P}=\%\mathrm{solubility}$ [0474] in which: [0475] P=weight, in g, of the sample=5 g [0476] m1=weight, in g, of the crystallizing dish after drying [0477] m2=weight, in g, of the empty crystallizing dish [0478] P1=weight, in g, of the sample collected=25 g

Measurement of the In Vitro Digestibility

[0479] The SIMPHYD device from NIZO is a static model of simulation of the digestion processes along the gastrointestinal tract.

[0480] Gastric digestion is combined with an online viscosity measurement over time. Adapted to physiological conditions, gastric acidification is initiated with concentrated HCl and the enzymes of enzymatic digestion (pepsin and lipase) are added.

[0481] All the samples are subjected to the SIMPHYD device at a concentration of 3% (m/v).

[0482] The measurements are taken as follows: [0483] A viscosity baseline is determined over 5 minutes, at natural pH and at 37? C. [0484] Acidification to pH 2 is then performed with HCl and the system is maintained at 37? C. for 15 minutes. [0485] Pepsin and lipase are added at 20 minutes.

[0486] The viscosity is monitored for 3 hours, using an AR-2000 TA Instruments rheometer at a shear rate of 75 s.sup.?1.

[0487] The measurements are taken in duplicate. If the difference between two measurements is too large, a third measurement is taken.

[0488] The profile of the test proteins is compared with those established by Hall et al. (2003 article entitled Casein and whey exert different effects on plasma amino acid profiles, gastrointestinal hormone secretion and appetite published in Br. J. Nutr. 89: 239-248) for rapid and slow proteins (whey protein and sodium caseinates, respectively).

[0489] The viscosity profiles obtained are presented in FIG. 21.

[0490] The apparent viscosity of the control whey protein sample does not change during the gastric process, whereas the apparent viscosity of the sodium caseinate control increases after gastric acidification and remains high after addition of the digestive enzymes.

[0491] After 5 minutes of acidification, the pea protein (NUTRALYS? S85M) shows a first viscosity peak, followed by a second at 15 minutes, and the viscosity profile then rejoins that of the whey protein, at slightly higher values.

[0492] The viscosity begins to fall before the addition of the digestive enzymes.

[0493] The pea protein isolates according to the invention show a very small increase in apparent viscosity, which decreases again to values slightly above those of the whey protein, for 30 minutes.

[0494] The behavior of the pea protein isolates according to the invention reflects their rapid nature characteristic of protein that is more satiety-generating than slow protein. This induces faster gastric emptying and a post-absorptive increase in plasmatic amino acids.

Measurement of the Emulsifying Power

[0495] As indicated above, the measurements are taken by light scattering of redissolved protein powder, the emulsions obtained being analyzed with a particle size analyzer for the size of the fat globules formed.

[0496] The results are expressed by: [0497] The Dmode, diameter of the main population, [0498] The D(4.3), arithmetic mean diameter [0499] The D10, D50 and D90, diameters for which there is 10%, 50% and 90% of passage.

[0500] The table below collates the size of the fat globules of the emulsions prepared using: [0501] the two pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention, No. 1 and No. 2. [0502] various milk proteins [0503] a batch of sodium caseinates.

[0504] The ?D corresponds to the difference between the D90 and the D10; it reflects the state of dispersion of the emulsions.

[0505] The smaller this value, the closer the droplet sizes, and the more homogeneous the emulsion.

TABLE-US-00001 Emulsifying capacity: Emulsion emulsion size (Dmode in ?m) stability Dmode D(4,3) D10 D50 D90 (?D) pea protein isolate 23.4 20.5 2.1 19.4 38.4 36.3 No. 1 according to the invention pea protein isolate 23.6 21.4 3.4 20.1 39.1 35.7 No. 2 according to the invention Skimmed milk 24.9 20.9 5.9 20.1 36.2 30.3 MPC milk protein 32.8 28.1 8.7 27.8 46.3 37.6 from FONTERRA MPC 80 Domo milk 25.5 21.8 6.5 21.1 37.3 30.8 protein from DMV MPI Prodiet 87B 25.4 22.6 6.9 21.4 39.1 32.2 milk protein from INGREDIA Sodium caseinates 31.9 25.3 6.3 25.3 43.6 37.3 from DMV

[0506] The pea protein isolates according to the invention have: [0507] good emulsifying properties (lower Dmode: 23.4 and 23.6 ?m, respectively) [0508] Emulsion stability (?D) of the same order as or even lower than certain concentrated milk proteins or the sodium caseinates and [0509] emulsion homogeneity equivalent to that of milk proteins.

[0510] Their properties moreover make them entirely transposable to applications in which a certain level of emulsifying power is required, such as iced dessert preparations or non-dairy coffee whitener, for which caseinates are sought.

Example 1: Preparation of the Pea Protein Isolates According to the Invention and Characterization of the Pea Protein Isolates Referenced 1 and 2 According to the Invention

Process for Preparing the Pea Protein Isolates No. 1 According to the Invention

[0511] 1500 kg of pea protein (sold by the Applicant Company under the brand name NUTRALYS? S85F) are mixed into 8500 liters of water preheated to 55? C.

[0512] The mixture is stirred for 3 hours at 55? C.

[0513] 0.5% (weight/weight) of endoprotease FLAVORPRO 750 MDP (from the company BIOCATALYST) is added.

[0514] The mixture is stirred for 1 hour at 55? C.

[0515] The degree of hydrolysis obtained is then 7.

[0516] The reaction is inhibited by heating the medium to 70? C. and keeping it at this temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes.

[0517] A UHT treatment is applied (regime: 140? C.10 seconds).

[0518] The mixture is dried by atomization to a solids content of about 93%.

Process for Preparing the Pea Protein Isolates No. 2 According to the Invention

[0519] 1500 kg of pes protein (sold by the Applicant Company under the brand name NUTRALYS? SB5F) are mixed into 8600 liters of water preheated to 55? C.

[0520] The mixture is stirred for 3 hours at 55? C.

[0521] 0.3% (weight/weight) of endoprotease ENZECO FUNGAL PROTEASE (from the company EDC) is added.

[0522] The mixture is stirred for 1 hour at 55? C., and the degree of hydrolysis obtained is then 6.5.

[0523] The enzymatic reaction is inhibited by heating the medium to 70? C. and keeping it at this temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes.

[0524] A UHT treatment is applied (regime: 140? C.10 seconds).

[0525] The mixture is then dried by atomization to a solids content of about 93%.

Characteristics of the Pea Protein Isolates Thus Prepared

1. Content of Free Amino Acids

[0526] Measurements taken according to standard NF EN ISO13903:2005

TABLE-US-00002 Free amino acids/sum of the amino acids (g/100 g crude percentage) NUTRALYS? S85F 0.18 pea protein isolate No. 1 0.77 according to the invention pea protein isolate No. 2 1.85 according to the invention

2. Viscosity Profile

[0527] For the determination of the viscosity profile in water, the measurements are taken [0528] on an aqueous solution of pea protein isolates containing 15% solids (osmosed and azide treated water at 200 ppm to prevent any bacteriological risk), [0529] with an AR2000 rheometer from the company TA Instruments, [0530] having concentric cylinder geometry, [0531] with a shear rate of 0.6?10.sup.?3 at 600 s.sup.?1 in 3 minutes (log) and [0532] at a temperature of 20? C. (3 minutes of temperature equilibration before testing).

[0533] Before measurement, the solution is stirred for at least 10 hours, at 750 rpm and at 20? C.

[0534] The pH is not adjusted.

[0535] The following table compares the viscosity profiles of the pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention with those of the control milk proteins and of the pea protein NUTRALYS? S85F.

TABLE-US-00003 Solution containing 15% solids Viscosity in Pa .Math. s at 20? C., spontaneous pH Sample reference 5 s.sup.?1 10 s.sup.?1 20 s.sup.?1 40 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 200 s.sup.?1 600 s.sup.?1 Pea protein NUTRALYS? S85F 15.820 9.538 5.700 3.570 1.900 1.251 0.680 Milk protein MPC 4882 from 0.030 0.032 0.030 0.029 0.029 0.028 0.026 FONTERRA Milk protein Prodiet 27B Fluid 0.022 0.021 0.019 0.017 0.015 0.014 0.013 from INGREDIA Pea protein isolate No. 1 0.013 0.013 0.0135 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010 according to the invention Pea protein isolate No. 2 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.014 according to the invention

[0536] It is found that the pes protein isolates in accordance with the invention show Newtonian behavior, like that of the milk proteins, whereas the pes protein NUTRALYS? S85E shows very pronounced shear-thinning behavior.

[0537] Furthermore, the viscosities of the pea protein isolates No. 1 and 2 are very close to the viscosities of the milk proteins, or even lower.

3: Solubility Profile in Water as a Function of the pH

[0538] The results are presented in the following table and are illustrated by FIG. 5.

TABLE-US-00004 Pea protein Pea protein Pea protein isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 NUTRALYS? according to according to Percentage S85F the invention the invention solubility Mean on 7 samples pH 3 47 50 49 pH 4 13 39 34 pH 5 11 38 33 pH 6 20 49 51 pH 7 38 53 64 pH 8 49 55 70

4. Stability Study

[0539] A study of stability over time of the pes protein isolates in accordance with the invention is conducted so as to measure their behavior with regard to intact pea protein.

[0540] The study is conducted after six months of storage according to a temperature/relative humidity regime of: [0541] 40? C.?2? C. [0542] at 75%?5% relative humidity.

[0543] The measurements are expressed as a percentage loss of solubility (measured according to the above procedure).

TABLE-US-00005 Pea protein Pea protein isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 Pea protein according to according to NUTRALYS? Percentage the invention the invention S85F solubility After 6 months of storage pH 3 ?12.2 ?27.7 ?44.0 pH 4 ?10.8 ?14.8 ?18.4 pH 5 ?6.9 ?9.8 ?5.2 pH 6 ?8.5 ?14.7 ?19.6 pH 7 ?8.8 ?19.9 ?47.4 pH 8 ?5.9 ?22.0 ?57.9

[0544] It is thus found that, at pH 7, NUTRALYS? S85F loses about half of its solubility, whereas the pea protein isolates lose at most only a fifth of their solubility, and in all cases conserve higher solubility than that of the initial NUTRALYS? S85F.

4Digestibility Profile

[0545] The aim of this study is to evaluate the total protein digestibility of the pea protein isolates No. 1 and 2 according to the invention and to compare it with NUTRALYS? S85F.

[0546] For this study, 48 Sprague Dawley rats (Charles River, Lyons, France) weighing 100-125 g at the start of the study were randomized as a function of their weight into four groups of 12 rats.

[0547] This experiment was performed in accordance with the European legislation on animal experimentation and with respect for animal well-being (APAFIS project No. 0000501).

[0548] On their arrival, the rats underwent a 7-day period of quarantine during which they received a standard feed for growing rats.

[0549] From the first day of the study, the rats received the following diets, for 10 days:

TABLE-US-00006 Pea protein Pea protein Pea protein isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 NUTRALYS? according to according to Control S85F the invention the invention in % in % in % in % Test product 0 12.5 12.4 12.5 Micro- 5 5 5 5 crystalline cellulose from MB Biomedicals Corn starch 72.7 60.2 60.2 60.2 qs 100% corn 12.9 0.39 0.44 0.4 starch Soybean oil- 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Huileries de S?rignan Sucrose 10 10 10 10 Maltodextrin 0 0 0 0 GLUCIDEX? IT21 from ROQUETTE FRERES Choline 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 bitartrate t-Butylhy- 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 droquinone Mineral 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 mixture AIN-93G from MP Biomedicals Vitamin 1 1 1 1 mixture AIN-93-VX from MP Biomedicals The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0550] The consumption of feed and drink and the weight change are monitored on the first and fifth days of study and then dally up to the tenth and final day of study.

[0551] During the first five days of study, the urine and feces are also collected daily. The protein contents of the feeds and feces are determined via the Kjeldahl method (standard ISO 1874:2009).

[0552] The nitrogen analyses of the feces and feed make it possible to calculate the Coefficient of Digestive Use (CDU):

[00004]$\mathrm{CDU}\left(\%\right)=\frac{\mathrm{quantity}\mathrm{absorbed}-\mathrm{quantity}\mathrm{excreted}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{feces}}{\mathrm{quantity}\mathrm{absorbed}}$

[0553] All the rats had the expected growth. It was significantly lower in the protein-deficient control group, as always in this experimental scheme.

[0554] The consumption of drink was not modified by the various diets.

[0555] The changes in the other urinary and fecal parameters are directly associated with the control or experimental diet.

[0556] As a function of the various experimental days, the following digestibilities were calculated:

TABLE-US-00007 Digestibility Diet (%) CDU D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 Mean Pea protein n 12 12 12 12 12 12.00 NUTRALYS? mean 96.5 96.3 95.3 95.0 95.8 95.8 S85F standard 2.6 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.9 0.8 deviation Pea protein n 12 12 12 12 12 12.00 isolate No. 1 mean 94.6 94.7 93.8 92.1 93.8 93.8 according to standard 4.6 2.1 1.8 3.6 3.5 1.3 the invention deviation Pea protein n 12 12 12 12 12 12.00 isolate No. 2 mean 95.2 95.7 95.2 93.2 94.6 94.8 according to standard 2.9 1.9 2.1 2.8 1.8 1.0 the invention deviation

[0557] From a statistical viewpoint, the protein digestibility of NUTRALYS? S85F is significantly different from that of the pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention (p=0.0003).

[0558] However, from a biological viewpoint, these differences are totally insignificant.

[0559] It may thus be concluded that the digestibilities are similar between NUTRALYS and the pea protein isolates No. 1 and No. 2 according to the invention with the following rounding-up:

TABLE-US-00008 Global Diet (rounded up) Pea protein mean 96 NUTRALYS? standard 1 S85F deviation Pea protein isolate mean 94 No. 1 according to standard 1 the invention deviation Pea protein isolate mean 95 No. 2 according to standard 1 the invention deviation

5Digestion Kinetics

[0560] This test uses an in vitro technique of simulation of protein digestion according to the following method.

[0561] The use of in vitro digestion methods allows efficient screening of various protein-rich food products as a function of their physicochemical properties and of their behavior during their passage through the stomach and the small intestine.

[0562] Here, a comparison is made of 3% (m/m) protein solutions for NUTRALYS? S85F, the pea protein isolates No. 1 and No. 2 according to the invention and the controls commonly used in tests of this type, namely casein and whey.

[0563] These five solutions are thus tested in an in vitro model of dynamic digestion under physiological conditions equivalent to the stomach and then the small intestine:

[0564] This digestion model is coupled with real-time monitoring of the viscosity using a controlled-stress rheometer (AR-2000, TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) equipped with a stainless steel fin rotor (height 39 mm and diameter 28 mm).

[0565] The protein solutions were tested under the same conditions, namely a regular shear at 37? C. and at a rate of 150 s.sup.?1 for 3 hours.

[0566] The base viscosity was monitored for 5 minutes before performing gradual acidification of the solution down to a pH of between 1.5 and 2.

[0567] This acidification generally takes 15 minutes.

[0568] Once the pH of the solution has stabilized between 1.5 and 2, an enzymatic cocktail of stomach pepsin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and of lipase (Novozyme, Gladesaxe, Denmark) is added. The viscosity monitoring curves are presented in FIG. 4.

[0569] Monitoring of the viscosity during the in vitro digestion clearly reflects the digestion kinetics of the proteins. Thus, the digestion of whey does not give rise to a change in the viscosity since it is a rapidly digested protein. Casein, for its part, shows a greatly increased viscosity after acidification, which reflects slow digestion.

[0570] The pea protein of NUTRALYS? type demonstrates behavior intermediate between these two standards; it is qualified as being rapid intermediate.

[0571] However, the pea protein isolates No. 1 and. No. 2 according to the invention show behavior that is again intermediate between NUTRALYS? S85F and whey.

[0572] It should be noted that the combination of rapid proteins with intermediate proteins may facilitate digestion and prolong the time of diffusion of the amino acids in the blood circulation, which is advantageous for protein synthesis in muscles after a long effort.

Example 2: Replacement of Milk Protein With the Pea Protein Isolates in UHT-Treated Ready Drink Beverages for Clinical Nutrition

[0573] The nutritive formulations based on milk protein, pea protein and pea protein isolates are presented in the following table:

TABLE-US-00009 Nutritional Nutritional formulation formulation No. 1 No. 2 Nutritional according according formulation Control to the to the with pea Ingredients formulation invention invention protein Maltodextrin 17.10 17.60 17.60 17.60 GLUCIDEX? IT19 (ROQUETTE FRERES) Milk protein 11.00 5.53 5.53 5.53 concentrate (MPC 80-FONTERRA) Pea Protein 5.67 NUTRALYS? S85F Pea protein isolate 5.67 No. 1 (according to the invention-cf. example 1 above) Pea protein isolate 5.67 No. 2 (according to the invention-cf. example 1 above) Sucrose 3.20 3.4 3.4 3.4 Rapeseed oil 4.02 3.78 3.78 3.78 Sunflower oil 2.68 2.52 2.52 2.52 Soybean lecithin 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Vanilla flavoring 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Mineral mixture 0.492 0.273 0.273 0.273 VITABLEND 7398 Mineral mixture 0.469 0.469 0.469 VITABLEND 7402 Demineralized 60.75 60 60 60 water Total 100 100 100 100 The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0574] Their nutritional values per 100 ml are as follows.

TABLE-US-00010 Nutritional Nutritional formulation formulation No. 1 No. 2 Nutritional according according formulation Control to the to the with pea formulation invention invention protein Calorific energy (kCal) 204 203 203 198 Protein content (g) 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.75 Of which milk protein 10.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 Pea protein isolates 0 5.0 5.0 0 Pea protein 0 0 0 4.9 Fat (g) 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.85 Carbohydrates (g) Of which sucrose 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 Fiber (g) Of which soluble 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Of which insoluble 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

[0575] Mineral composition (per 100 ml):

TABLE-US-00011 Nutritional formulation No. 2 according Control to the (mg) formulation invention Na 67.8 107.7 Ca 242.0 241.4 K 163.9 160.4 Cl 65.0 64.1 P 154.0 135.3 Mg 25.4 24.9

[0576] The process for manufacturing the beverages is as follows: [0577] Dry-mix all the powders (milk protein, pea protein, pea protein isolates, maltodextrins and sucrose), [0578] Weigh out 90% of the water at 55? C., [0579] Add the power mix to the water at 55? C., disperse with a whip for 1 minute and then mix with a SILVERSON blender for 30 minutes at 55? C., [0580] In a separate mixing container, dissolve the minerals with the remaining water at 50? C. and add immediately to the solution, [0581] Add the vanilla flavoring to said solution, [0582] Place the lecithin and the oil in a separate mixing container, stir and heat to about 55? C., [0583] After 35 minutes of hydration, add the lecithin and the oil mixture to the main batch, using a shear of 10 000 rpm for 5 minutes, [0584] Preheat the product to 75? C. per batch of 3 liters in a beaker on a water bath (temperature rise of about 10 minutes) and homogenize at 200 bar (one stage) on a homogenizer of 10 liters/hour (about 20 minutes per batch), [0585] Cool the product to 30? C. for 5 minutes to 45 minutes depending on the batch, [0586] Adjust to pH 6.8-7, at 30? C., with 30% sodium hydroxide, [0587] Heat the product again on a water bath at 75? C. (temperature rise over 10 minutes), [0588] Sterilize the product at 142? C. for 5 seconds in a tubular exchanger and then cool in the exchanger to 25? C., [0589] Package the product in bottles, [0590] Store at +4? C.

[0591] The analyses performed on the formulation are as follows:

1. Particle Size Analysis on the Emulsion Formed by the Nutritional Formulations According to the Invention

[0592] The object here is to analyze the aspect of the pea protein isolate-based nutritional formulations with regard to the milk protein-based control.

[0593] The analyses were performed with a reference 2000 particle size analyzer from MALVERN. The results obtained are presented in FIG. 1 and in the following table (the values in the table are the mean of three measurements).

[0594] The Dmode is the main particle diameter. The d10, d50 and d90 are the particle diameter values representing, respectively, 10%, 50% and 90% of the total particles.

TABLE-US-00012 Particle size (?m) After homogenization and before the heat treatment step Dmode d10 d50 d90 Control formulation: 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.4 100% milk protein Nutritional formulation No. 0.3 0.2 0.9 10.3 1 according to the invention 50% pea protein isolate No. 1 + 50% milk protein Nutritional formulation No. 0.3 0.2 0.5 6.7 2 according to the invention 50% pea protein isolate No. 2 + 50% milk protein Nutritional formulation with 46.1 0.3 25.4 78.4 pea protein 100% pea protein

[0595] The four samples show a bimodal particle distribution. The first peak (first family of particles), centered on 0.3 ?m, is predominant in the first three formulations. For the nutritional formulation with pea protein, this population is minor.

[0596] The second peak of the bimodal distribution (second family of particles) depends on the sample: [0597] for formulations 1 and 2 according to the invention, there is a population centered on 3 ?m, but the volume of said population is greater for formulation No. 1; [0598] for the control formulation: the second peak is centered on 10 ?m: [0599] the nutritional formulation with pea protein shows its difference by having a second peak centered on 46 ?m.

[0600] It is deduced therefrom that the pea protein isolates No. 1 and No. 2 make it possible to obtain emulsion sizes for the beverage close to that obtained with milk protein.

[0601] Moreover, the pea protein isolate No. 2 even gives a better emulsion size distribution (less bimodal distribution and better emulsion stability represented by the difference between the D90 and D10) then the pea protein isolate No. 1.

2. Viscosity Analysis

[0602] The object here is to show the stability of the pea protein isolate-based nutritional formulations with regard to the milk protein-based control, and also to demonstrate the technological advantage in choosing these isolates with regard to pea protein.

[0603] The measuring parameters are as follows: [0604] Rheometer: Physica MCR301 [0605] Tools: Tools: concentric cylinder CC27 [0606] Temperature: 20? C. (5 minutes to be at equilibrium) [0607] Shear: 0:05 to 1000 s.sup.?1 in 6 minutes

[0608] The result of the viscosity measurements is presented in the following table (the pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention is analyzed here):

TABLE-US-00013 Viscosity in Pa .Math. s at 20? C. After 1 month of Before heat treatment After heat treatment storage at +4? C. 10 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 1000 s.sup.?1 10 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 1000 s.sup.?1 10 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 1000 s.sup.?1 Control formulation: 0.125 0.107 0.088 0.048 0.045 0.044 0.055 0.051 0.047 100% milk protein Nutritional 0.083 0.053 0.048 0.079 0.053 0.040 0.327 0.151 0.099 formulation No. 1 according to the invention 50% pea protein isolate No. 1 + 50% milk protein Nutritional 0.105 0.097 0.087 1.160 0.421 0.183 1.110 0.392 0.169 formulation with ppea rotein 100% pea protein

[0609] The heat treatment does not affect the three nutritional formulations in the same way: [0610] For the control formulation, the heat treatment leads to a decrease in viscosity; [0611] For formulation No. 1, there is an increase in viscosity and increase in the shear-thinning behavior, but this viscosity increase remains low and is close to that of the control formulation.

[0612] It is in fact found that, before the heat treatment, the control formulation has the highest viscosity, followed by the pea protein-based formulation.

[0613] After the heat treatment, on the other hand, the control formulation has the lowest viscosity, followed by formulation No. 1 in accordance with the invention.

[0614] In conclusion, the nutritional formulation No. 1 according to the invention and the milk protein-based control formulation have rheological behavior that is similar in terms of viscosity and heat resistance.

[0615] Other viscosity measurements were taken on the same beverage recipes, this time also taking a nutritional formulation prepared with the pea protein isolate No. 2 (especially changing the cooking method, in this case UHT sterilization (142? C.5 seconds) at 20 liters/hour online with in-phase homogenization descending to 75? C. at 200 bar after the heat treatment) and after one month of storage of the beverages at +4? C.

TABLE-US-00014 Viscosity in Pa .Math. s at 20? C. After 1 month After heat treatment of storage at +4? C. 10 100 1000 10 100 1000 s.sup.?1 s.sup.?1 s.sup.?1 s.sup.?1 s.sup.?1 s.sup.?1 Control formulation: 0.049 0.047 0.045 0.085 0.076 0.068 100% milk protein Nutritional formulation 0.101 0.073 0.057 0.157 0.097 0.065 No. 1 according to the invention 50% pea protein isolate No. 1 + 50% milk protein Nutritional formulation 0.107 0.075 0.057 0.155 0.095 0.064 No. 2 according to the invention 50% pea protein isolate No. 2 + 50% milk protein Nutritional formulation 0.963 0.343 0.159 1.47 0.459 0.202 with pea protein 100% pea protein

[0616] These results show that all the formulations have a viscosity which increases after one month at 4? C. Formulations No. 1 and 2 have a viscosity which increases very slightly, of the same order of magnitude as that of the control formulation, after one month, in comparison with the pea protein formulation.

[0617] The beverages containing the pea protein isolates No. 1 and 2 are much more stable than the beverage containing the pea protein, and approach the stability of the beverage containing milk protein.

Example 3: Replacement of Milk Protein With the Pea Protein Isolates in UHT-Treated Ready-To-Drink Beverages for Sports Nutrition

[0618] The nutritional formulations have the following compositions:

TABLE-US-00015 Recipe No. 1 2 3 4 5 % by % by % by % by % by weight weight weight weight weight Milk protein concentrate 8.05 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.85 (MPC 80 DMV) Pea protein isolate 3.30 No. 1 (according to the invention-cf. example 1 above) Pea protein isolate 3.30 No. 1 (according to the invention-cf. example 2 above) Pea protein 3.30 NUTRALYS? S85F (ROQUETTE FRERES) Pea protein 3.30 PISANE? from the company COSUCRA Maltodextrin 1.70 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 GLUCIDEX? IT19 (ROQUETTE FRERES) Sucrose 3.80 4 4 4 4 Vanilla flavoring 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 MATVIS C3000 (AGI) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Liquid skimmed milk 86.05 85.85 85.85 85.85 85.85 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0619] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0620] Their nutritional values per 100 ml are as follows

TABLE-US-00016 Recipe No. 1 2 3 4 5 Calorific energy (kCal) 85 86 86 88 86 Protein content (g) 10 10 10 10 10 Of which milk protein 10 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 Pea protein isolates 0 2.8 2.8 0 0 Pea protein 0 0 0 2.8 2.8 Fat (g) 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Carbohydrates (g) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 Of which sugars 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Fiber (g) 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Of which soluble 0 0 0 0 0 Of which insoluble 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

[0621] The conditions for preparing said beverages are the same as those of Example 2.

[0622] Viscosity measurements are taken on said ready-to-drink sports beverages.

[0623] The object here is also to show the stability of the pea protein isolate-based nutritional formulations with regard to the milk protein-based control, and also to demonstrate the technological advantage in choosing these isolates with regard to pea protein.

[0624] The measuring parameters are as follows: [0625] Rheometer: Physica MCR301 [0626] Tools: Tools: concentric cylinder CC27 [0627] Temperature: 20? C. (6 minutes to be at equilibrium) [0628] Shear: 0.05 to 1000 s.sup.?1 in 6 minutes

[0629] The result of the viscosity measurements is presented in the following table:

TABLE-US-00017 Recipe heat Viscosity (Pa .Math. s) at reference treatment 10 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 1 Before UHT 0.74 0.27 0.09 After UHT 0.27 0.09 0.043 2 Before UHT 0.067 0.043 0.028 After UHT 0.024 0.02 0.018 3 Before UHT 0.106 0.056 0.032 After UHT 0.026 0.021 0.019 4 Before UHT 0.04 0.027 0.02 After UHT 0.15 0.075 0.042 5 Before UHT 0.042 0.029 0.022 After UHT 0.091 0.055 0.035

[0630] It is deduced therefrom that: [0631] before UHT, the formulations containing pea protein isolates have a viscosity that is intermediate between the milk protein and the pea protein, [0632] after UHT, the formulations containing pes protein isolates lose viscosity, whereas the pea protein gains viscosity; the milk protein remaining the most viscous.

[0633] The pea protein isolates are thus more stable to heat treatment than the pea protein and are more suited to UHT ready-to-drink sports beverages on account of their low viscosity, which are properties required for UHT ready-to-drink sports beverages.

Example 4: Replacement of Milk Protein With the Pea Protein Isolates in a UHT-Treated Liquid Formulation for Enteral Clinical Nutrition

[0634] The nutritional formulations then have the following compositions:

TABLE-US-00018 1 2 Control 100% 50% calcium Substitution caseinate of milk protein Calcium caseinate (DMV) 4.96 2.48 Pea protein isolate No. 1 or No. 2 0.00 2.82 Maltodextrin GLUCIDEX? IT 19 14.60 14.60 Rapeseed oil 4.40 4.40 Water 75.04 74.70 Mineral mix Vitablend 1.00 1.00 TOTAL 100.00 100.00

[0635] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0636] The nutritional values per 100 ml are as follows.

TABLE-US-00019 Recipe No. 1 2 Solids (%) 24.2 24.5 Calorific energy (kCal) 116 117 per 100 g Fat (g) 4.5 4.7 Protein content (g) 4.52 4.52 Of which milk protein 4.52 2.26 Pea protein isolates 0 2.26 Carbohydrates (g) 14 14 Of which sugars 0.9 0.9 Fibers (g) 0 0 Of which soluble 0 0 Of which insoluble 0 0

[0637] The process for manufacturing the beverages is as follows: [0638] Mix the caseinates in water at 50? C., add the proteins, and mix on a magnetic plate for 10 minutes, [0639] Add the carbohydrates and the minerals while mixing with a SILVERSON blender, [0640] Add the oil while mixing with a SILVERSON blender for 5 minutes (10 000 rpm), [0641] Homogenize at 60? C. at 250 bar in a NIRO SOAVI 2K high-pressure homogenizer (2 stages). [0642] Adjust the pH to 6.9 with 50% citric acid solution, [0643] Sterilize in an autoclave in glass jars at 120? C. for 15 minutes, [0644] Cool to room temperature.

[0645] Under these operating conditions, the pea protein isolates may be advantageously used in replacement for milk protein.

Example 5: Comparison of the Sensory Properties of Four Powder Mixes Formulated With Pea Protein Isolates in Accordance With the Invention for Sportspeople

[0646] The panel consisted 13 people.

[0647] The panel is qualified for tasting products formulated with pea protein. It received training so as to check its performance in terms of: [0648] Capacity to discriminate the products [0649] Consensus, correct use of the descriptors [0650] Repeatability, ability to detect a product submitted twice

[0651] Specifically, it received training in the correct use of the sensory descriptors of taste and texture, for instance:

TABLE-US-00020 Descriptor Definition Procedure Reference PEA typical pea taste Taste the product solution containing 3% by weight of garden peas in water (homogenization with a blender) STRAWBERRY Typical strawberry Taste the product strawberry-flavored taste solution BANANA Typical banana taste Taste the product banana-flavored solution CARDBOARD Typical cardboard Taste the product Solution of tannic acid at taste 0.5 g/liter in mineral water SWEET Sweet taste Taste the product Solution of sucrose at 6 g/liter in mineral water BITTER Bitter taste Taste the product Solution of caffeine at 0.5 g/liter in mineral water SANDY Evaluation of the Chew a product unit until it is Certain pears granular nature and of ready to swallow and evaluate the number of the perception of small grains particles of a product in the mouth (not sandy/very sandy)

[0652] The method also allows them to make comments on other descriptors that were not anticipated in this list.

Products

[0653] The nutritional formulations are powder mixes intended for sportspeople, having the following composition:

TABLE-US-00021 Ratio of pea protein or pea protein isolates according to the invention/milk protein 55/45 55/45 55/45 Pea protein Pea protein Pea protein 55/45 isolate No. isolate No. PISANE? Pea protein 1 according 2 according from the NUTRALYS? to the to the company S85F invention invention COSUCRA Nutritional formulations based on: % by weight % by weight % by weight % by weight Whey protein concentrate 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 (WPC 80 Fonterra) Pea protein isolate No. 1 according 0 52.8 to the invention Pea protein isolate No. 2 according 0 0 52.8 0 to the invention Pea protein PISANE? from the 0 0 0 52.8 company COSUCRA NUTRALYS? S85F 52.8 0 0 0 Banana flavoring (N-Captpre MSD 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 M_0058032) Strawberry flavoring (N-Capture 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 MSD M_0055259) Salt 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Xanthan gum F80 (AGI) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Acesulfame K 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Sucralose 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 TOTAL 100 100 100 100

[0654] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0655] They are reconstituted in water at room temperature just before tasting.

[0656] Tasting conditions: [0657] In a sensory analysis laboratory: individual tasting cubicles, white walls, calm environment (to facilitate concentration) [0658] White light (to have exactly the same vision of the product) [0659] At the end of the morning or the afternoon (to be at the height of the sensory capacities) [0660] Products rendered anonymous with a three-figure code (to prevent the code from influencing the assessment of the products) [0661] Products presented in a random order (to prevent order and persistence effects)

Test

[0662] The method employed to compare the results was the Flash Profile (J. M. Sieffermann, 2000Le profit Flash: Un outil rapide et innovant d'?valuation sensorielle descriptive. [The Flash Profile a rapid and innovative tool for descriptive sensory evaluation] In: L'innovation; de l'id?e au succ?s [Innovation: from the idea to success]12th AGORAL Meeting. Pages 335-340, Mar. 22-23. 2000. Paris, France: Lavoisier, Tec & Doc.).

[0663] The products: are all presented simultaneously. It is a matter of comparing the products by making a succession of classifications: the panellists choose the descriptors which appear to them to be the most pertinent to discriminate between the products, and classify the products according to these descriptors; it is possible that several products are grouped in the same row.

Example

[0664] Sensory descriptor: Crunchy

Data Processing

[0665] The statistical processing method suited to this type of data is multiple factor analysis (J. Pag?s, 1994Multiple factor analysis (AFMULT package). In: Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Volume 18, Issue 1, August 1994, Pages 121-140) on the data-rows of the products.

[0666] In order for the results to be clearer, the MFA was performed several times: globally, and per criterion (aspect, odor, taste, texture). The graphs presented summarize all of the results provided by this method.

[0667] The analyses were performed using the R software (on open sale): [0668] R version 2.14.1 (2011 Dec. 22) [0669] Copyright (C) 2011 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing [0670] ISBN 3-900051-07-0 [0671] 20 Platform: i386-pc-mingw32/i386 (32-bit)

[0672] The software is a working environment which requires the loading of modules containing the calculation functions such as the FactoMineR version 1.19 package.

Results

[0673] Representation of the results in graph form is presented in FIG. 2.

[0674] Three groups are distinguished: the pea protein PISANE? sold by the company COSUCRA, the pea protein NUTRALYS? S85F; and the two pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention of example 1.

[0675] The panelists established little difference between the two pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention of example 1.

[0676] They have a less sandy, pea and paper/cardboard aspect than the control products and are more bitter and more strawberry/banana (flavors used in this formulation).

[0677] The mix with PISANE? stands out in terms of texture since its application generated the formation of foam.

[0678] The mix with NUTRALYS? S85F, for its part, stood out for its sweet taste.

Example 6: Comparison of the Sensory Properties of Ready-To-Drink Beverages for Clinical Nutrition

[0679] The panel consisted of 14 people.

[0680] The panel, as in example 3, is qualified for tasting products formulated with pea protein. It received training so as to check its performance in terms of: [0681] Capacity to discriminate the products [0682] Consensus, correct use of the descriptors [0683] Repeatability, ability to detect a product submitted twice

[0684] Specifically, it received training in the correct use of the sensory descriptors of taste and texture, for instance:

TABLE-US-00022 Descriptor Definition Procedure Reference PEA Typical pea taste Taste the product solution containing 3% by weight of garden peas in water (homogenization with a mixer) VANILLA Typical vanilla taste Taste the product Vanilla-flavored solution CARAMEL Typical caramel taste Taste the product Caramel SALTY Salty taste Taste the product Solution of sodium chloride at 0.01 g/liter in mineral water ASTRINGENT Sensation of dryness Taste the product Solution of tannic acid at 0.5 g/liter in mineral water CREAMY/TOPPING Evaluation of the soft Chew the product unit and Cr?me fra?che, thick cream and fondant texture of check whether it causes a soft the product. contact and whether it lines (not creamy/very the mouth. creamy) TACK Evaluation of the After chewing consecutively a Soft caramel force required to few times, press the product detach products that between the teeth and adhere inside the oral measure the force required for cavity. it to be detached from the (not tacky/very tacky) teeth. THICK Evaluation of the Rub the tongue against the Sweetened concentrated ease of the product palate and check whether the milk, honey flow in the mouth. product flows easily. (not thick/very thick)

[0685] The method also allows them to make comments on other descriptors that were not anticipated in this list.

Products

[0686] The products are ready-to-drink beverages, the recipes for which are those of example 2.

[0687] They are presented to the panelists at room temperature.

Tasting Conditions

[0688] In a sensory analysis laboratory: individual tasting cubicles, white walls, calm environment (to facilitate concentration) [0689] White light (to have exactly the same vision of the product) [0690] At the end of the morning or the afternoon (to be at the height of the sensory capacities) [0691] Products rendered anonymous with a three-figure code (to prevent the code from influencing the assessment of the products) [0692] Products presented in a random order (to prevent order and persistence effects)

Exercise

[0693] The method employed to compare the products was the Flash Profile (J. M. Sieffermann, 2000)

[0694] The products are all presented simultaneously. It is a matter of comparing the products by making a succession of classifications: the panelists choose the descriptors which appear to them to be the most pertinent to discriminate between the products, and classify the products according to these descriptors: it is possible that several products are grouped in the same row.

Example

[0695] Sensory descriptor: Crunchy

Data Processing

[0696] The statistical processing method suited to this type of data is multiple factor analysis (J. Pag?s, 1994) on the data-rows of the products. In order for the results to be clearer, the MFA was performed several times; globally, and per criterion (aspect, odor, taste, texture). The graphs presented summarize all of the results provided by this method.

[0697] The analyses were performed using the R software (on open sale): [0698] R-version 2.14.1.(2011 Dec. 22) [0699] Copyright (C) 2011 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing [0700] ISBN 3-900051-07-0 [0701] 20 Platform: i386-pc-mingw32/i386 (32-bit)

[0702] The software is a working environment which requires the loading of modules containing the calculation functions such as the FactoMineR version 1.19 package.

Results

[0703] Representation of the results in graph form is presented in FIG. 3.

[0704] NUTRALYS? S85F was presented twice to test the repeatability of the panel: it may be seen on the graph that the two points are close on the first dimension (the largest) but not on the second; it is thus considered that this second dimension consists of measurement noise. Thus, there is no significant difference between the two pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention, since they are close on the first dimension.

[0705] It is seen that the two pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention are more vanilla/caramel and sally than NUTRALYS? S85F, which proves to be more pea/vegetable and astringent in taste, more creamy/coating, thick and tacky in texture.

Example 7: Comparison of the Sensory Properties of Ready-To-Drink Beverages for Sportspeople

[0706] The panel consisted of 12 people.

[0707] The panel, as in example 3, is qualified for tasting products formulated with pea protein. It received training so as to check its performance in terms of: [0708] Capacity to discriminate the products [0709] Consensus, correct use of the descriptors [0710] Repeatability, ability to detect a product submitted twice

Products

[0711] The products are ready-to-drink beverages, the recipes for which are those of example 3. They are presented to the panellists at room temperature.

Exercise

[0712] The method employed to compare the products was the Flash Profile (J. M. Sieffermann, 2000).

[0713] The products are all presented simultaneously. It is a matter of comparing the products by making a succession of classifications: the panellists choose the descriptors which appear to them to be the most pertinent to discriminate between the products, and classify the products according to these descriptors; it is possible that several products are grouped in the same row.

Example

[0714] Sensory descriptor: fresh walnut

[0715] Here is the list of descriptors presented to the panellists as a guide:

TABLE-US-00023 flavor/odor milky vegetable flavor off flavor taste/moufhfeel texture milk pea/vegetable AG vanilla paper/cardboard acidic tacky whey cereals caramel detergent bitter settled fermented milk vegetable chemical salty creamy reconstituted fresh walnut glue astringent/drying dessert cream baby milk consistency yoghurt potato metallic sweet thick butter spicy watery airy foam coating sandy powdery coarse smooth

Data Processing

[0716] The statistical processing method suited to this type of data is multiple factor analysis (J. Pag?s, 1994) on the notes of the products. The set of descriptors generated by a judge is a group of variables. The graphs presented summarize all of the results provided by this method.

[0717] The statistical processing was performed with the software R version 2.14.1 (2011 Dec. 22).

Results

[0718] Representation of the results in graph form is presented in FIG. 6.

[0719] Two families are distinguished on dimension 1: the two pes protein isolates according to the invention/the two pea proteins, and with dimension 2 the four samples may be characterized according to their texture, odor and taste.

[0720] Regarding the texture, the ready-to-drink beverages with PISANE? and NUTRALYS? S85F are thicker than those with the pea protein isolates according to the invention.

[0721] Regarding the odor, the beverage with the pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention is more vanilla than the pea protein isolate No. 2, whereas with PISANE?, the odor is more pea.

[0722] Regarding the taste, PISANE? appears spicy and chemical and, as for the odor, more pea, walnut and vegetable. The ready-to-drink beverages with PISANE and NUTRALYS? S85F have in common the bitter and paper-cardboard nature.

[0723] As regards the beverages with the pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention, beverage No. 1 (with isolate No. 1) is more milky and vanilla and beverage No. 2 is more cereal and milk jam/caramel.

Example 8: Replacement of Milk Protein With the Pea Protein Isolates in UHT-Treated Dessert Creams for Clinical Nutrition

[0724] The nutritive formulations based on milk, pea and competing pea protein and pea protein isolates according to the invention are presented in the following table (substitution of the order of 23%):

TABLE-US-00024 Nutritional formulation Nutritional No. 2 Nutritional formulation according formulation with Control to the with pea competing Ingredients formulation invention protein pea protein Demineralized water 64.30 64.30 64.30 64.30 Sucrose 12.40 12.40 12.40 12.40 Milk protein isolate 12.00 9.60 9.60 9.60 (MPI-Ingredia) Rapeseed oil 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 Modified corn starch 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 CLEARAM? CR3020 (ROQUETTE FRERES) Maltodextrin 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 GLUCIDEX? IT19 (ROQUETTE FRERES) Corn dextrin 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 NUTRIOSE? FM06 Milk flavoring 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Soybean lecithin 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Pea protein isolate 2.40 No. 2 (according to the invention-cf. example 1 above) Pea protein 2.40 NUTRALYS? S85F (ROQUETTE FRERES) Pea protein 2.40 PISANE? (COSUCRA) Total 100 100 100 100

[0725] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0726] The nutritional values per 100 g are as follows:

TABLE-US-00025 Nutritional formulation Nutritional No. 2 Nutritional formulation according formulation with Control to the with pea competing formulation invention protein pea protein Calorific 151 153 153 153 energy (kCal) Protein content 10.3 10.1 10.1 10.1 (g) Of which milk 10.3 8.1 8.1 8.1 protein Of which pea 0 0 0 0 protein isolates Of which pea 0 2 2 2 protein Fat (g) 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 Carbohydrates 17.8 17.7 17.7 17.7 (g) Of which 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.8 sucrose Fiber (g) 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 Of which 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 soluble Of which 0 0 0 0 insoluble

[0727] The process for manufacturing the beverages is as follows: [0728] Preheat the water to 50? C., [0729] Dry-mix all the powders (milk protein, pea protein, pea protein isolates, maltodextrins, dextrins, sucrose and starch), [0730] Add the powder mix to the water at 50? C., disperse with a whip for 1 minute and then mix with a SILVERSON blender at 3000 rpm for 30 minutes at 50? C., [0731] Add the flavoring to said solution, [0732] Place the lecithin and the oil in a separate mixing container, stir and heat to 50? C., [0733] After 30 minutes of hydration, add the lecithin and the off mixture to the main batch, using a shear of 10 000 rpm for 5 minutes, [0734] Sterilize the product at. 133? C. for 55 seconds in a tubular exchanger and then package at 70? C. [0735] Store at 4? C.

Comparison of the Sensory Properties of Dessert Creams for Clinical Nutrition

[0736] The panel is qualified for tasting formulated products. It received training so as to check its performance in terms of: [0737] Capacity to discriminate the products. [0738] Consensus, correct use of the descriptors [0739] Repeatability, ability to detect a product submitted twice

[0740] The panel consisted of 26 people, among the Roquette staff, and, on the day of tasting, 11 people were present, among whom six were specifically trained on the subject of dessert creams.

[0741] The products were prepared and then stored in a refrigerator.

[0742] They were served to the panellists at room temperature.

Tasting Conditions

[0743] In the sensory analysis laboratory: individual tasting cubicles, white walls, calm environment (to facilitate concentration) [0744] White light (to have exactly the same vision of the product) [0745] At the end of the morning or the afternoon (to be at the height of the sensory capacities) [0746] Products rendered anonymous with a three-figure code (to prevent the code from influencing the assessment of the products) [0747] Products presented in a random order (to prevent order and persistence effects)

Exercise

[0748] The method employed to compare the products was the Flash Profile (J. M. Sieffermann, 2000).

[0749] The products are al presented simultaneously. It is a matter of comparing the products by making a succession of classifications: the panelists choose the descriptors which appear to them to be the most pertinent to discriminate between the products, and classify the products according to these descriptors; it is possible that several products are grouped in the same row.

Example

[0750] Sensory descriptor: Fondant

[0751] Here is the list of descriptors presented to the panelists as a guide:

TABLE-US-00026 DESSERT CREAMS Descriptor Definition Procedure Reference APPEARANCE Glossy which reflects light explore the product visually Raw egg yolk (not glossy/very glossy) Granular which contains particles (numerous explore the product visually Brown sugar (appearance) and/or large-sized) (not granular/very granular TASTE Sweet Elementary taste generated by a sucrose Taste the product Caster sugar solution Bitter Elementary taste which gives a sour, Taste the product Caffeine/coffee unpleasant sensation, with a caffeine solution Pea has a pea taste Taste the product Pea TEXTURE spoonful Thick resists flowing evaluate the stress resistance of the Honey (spoon) (not thick/very thick) product by turning the spoon in the jar Short forms a thin flow trickle/falls in blobs Take up a product unit with a spoon. SojaSun (long/short texture) Raise and turn the spoon over. Check the length of the flow trickle Mouthfeel Initial phase (perception when first placed in the mouth) Thick flows with difficulty in the mouth put a product unit in the mouth and move Mascarpone (in the (not thick/very thick) it around the oral cavity mouth) Chewing phase (perception during chewing) Fondant Evaluation of the dissolvability of the keep moving the product around in the Ice cream product in the mouth by the action of the mouth and evaluate the time taken to saliva. dissolve it. (not fondant/very fondant) Creamy has a soft contact and melts in ths mouth put a product unit in the mouth and check Thick cr?me (not creamy/very creamy) whether it gives a soft contact and fra?che whether it lines the oral cavity Granular contains particles slide the tongue against the palate and Brown sugar (in the (smooth/very granular) evaluate the perception of small grains in mouth) the mouth Residual phase (changes arising during chewing) Tacky adheres to the walls of the oral cavity place a sample on the tongue, press it Soft caramel (not tacky/very tacky) against the palate and evaluate the force required to remove it with the tongue

Data Processing

[0752] The statistical processing method suited to this type of data is multiple factor analysis (J. Pag?s, 1994) on the data-rows of the products. In order for the results to be clearer, the MFA was performed several times; globally, and per criterion (aspect, odor, taste, texture). The graphs presented summarize all of the results provided by this method.

[0753] The statistical processing was performed with the software R version 2.14.1 (2011 Dec. 22).

Results

[0754] As is seen in FIG. 7, the dessert creams are consensually discriminated by all the panellists with a very high dimension 1 at almost 64% which describes the extreme products in the following manner.

[0755] The milk control has the glossiest appearance and melts in the mouth, but is the least thick and has the sweetest taste.

[0756] Regarding the texture, the dessert creams with PISANE? C9 and NUTRALYS? S85F are thicker than those with the pea protein isolate according to the invention.

[0757] Regarding the taste, the dessert cream with the pea protein isolate is less pea than the test with PISANE? C9 and NUTRALYS? S85F.

Example 9. Replacement of Milk Protein With the Pea Protein Isolates in Ice Creams/Iced Desserts

[0758] Four recipes are developed: [0759] Control with 100% milk protein [0760] Recipe No. 1: 50% milk protein replaced with the pea protein NUTRALYS? S85F; [0761] Recipe No. 2: 50% milk protein replaced with the pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention; [0762] Recipe No. 3: 50% milk protein replaced with the pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention;

TABLE-US-00027 Control Recipe No. 1 Recipe No. 2 Recipe No. 3 Water 48.70 48.77 48.79 48.79 Sucrose 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Cream (35% fat) 27.40 27.40 27.40 27.40 Lactose 0.00 2.10 2.10 2.10 Skimmed milk 5.80 2.05 2.05 2.05 powder 70/81 Glucose syrup 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Pea protein 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.00 NUTRALYS? S85F Pea protein isolate 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.00 No. 1 according to the invention Pea protein isolate 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 No. 2 according to the invention Stabilizers 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 (CREMODAN SE30) Vanilla flavoring 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 IFF 10836706 TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

[0763] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

TABLE-US-00028 Nutritional values per 100 g Energy (kCal) 181.75 174.63 174.47 168.31 Fat(g) 10.03 10.15 10.15 10.15 Carbohydrates (g) 20.33 20.30 20.33 20.30 Of which sugars (g) 19.59 17.54 17.55 17.54 Proteins (g) 2.53 2.50 2.50 2.50 Of which milk protein (g) 2.53 1.25 1.25 1.25 Of which plant protein (g) 0.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 Fiber (g) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Solids (%) 33.98 33.85 33.86 33.87 Lactose (%) 4.09 4.06 4.06 4.06 ESDL (%) 3.84 3.95 3.95 3.95 Degree of substitution of 0 50 50 50 the milk protein (%)

[0764] The manufacturing process is as follows: [0765] Add the skimmed milk to the container (40/45? C.), [0766] Add the powdered ingredients to the container and stir for 15 minutes at 80 Hz in a CHOCOTEC batch cooker, [0767] Mix together the stabilizers and the sugar, then incorporate the mixture into the container, [0768] Mix for 20 minutes at 80 Hz, [0769] Incorporate the cream and the glucose syrup, [0770] Mix for 15 minutes at 80 Hz, [0771] Pasteurize at 80? C. for 3 minutes, [0772] Cool to 70? C.Half of the mixture obtained is homogenized directly; the other half is cooled to 50? C. When the first batch is homogenized, the second batch is heated to 70? C. and then homogenized, [0773] Homogenize at 200 bar, [0774] Cool in the maturation container to 4? C. and add the flavoring, [0775] Leave to mature for 23 hours, [0776] Beat to obtain an overrun of 95-100% and freeze at ?30? C. to 1 hour, [0777] Store the ice cream at ?20? C.

Analyses

Characterization of the Mixtures During the Manufacturing Process

[0778]

TABLE-US-00029 Control Recipe No. 1 Recipe No. 2 Recipe No. 3 pH before maturation 6.72 (0.5? C.) 7.00 (1? C.) 6.90 (0.6? C.) pH after maturation 6.73 (?1.5? C.) 7.07 (0.1? C.) 6.82 (?2.4? C.) 7.01 (?2? C.) Overrun of the 103 111 97 98 mixture (%) Outlet temperature (? C.) ?5.4 ?5.6 ?6 ?5.6

[0779] It is noted that the expandability of the preparations made with the pas protein isolates in accordance with the invention is identical to that of the control and is not significantly different from that made with pea protein.

Viscosity Measurements

[0780]

TABLE-US-00030 Viscosity (Pa .Math. s) Maturation 10 s?1 100 s?1 Control Before 0.24 0.098 After 0.23 0.095 Recipe No. 1 Before 0.36 0.18 After 0.35 0.2 Recipe No. 2 Before 0.18 0.10 After 0.18 0.10 Recipe No. 3 Before 0.2 0.11 After 0.16 0.098

[0781] The recipe with pea protein shows the highest viscosities. The recipes with pea protein isolate in accordance with the invention are equivalent to the control recipe.

Particle Size Analysis

[0782] The particle size analysis was performed at various steps in the preparation of the ice cream for the purpose of evaluating the emulsifying capacity and the stability of the emulsion: [0783] Size distribution of the fat globules after the homogenization step, [0784] Size distribution of the fat globules after the maturation step, [0785] Size distribution of the fat globules of the ice cream (equivalent to the size distribution of the fat globules after the beating step).

[0786] These analyses were also performed with addition of 0.1% SDS so as to determine whether the emulsion was created by aggregation/flocculation or by coalescence.

[0787] The results are presented in FIGS. 8 to 11.

[0788] For each recipe, the particle size distribution tends to decrease or to become more monomodal after maturation.

[0789] This change is very perceptible for the recipe with the pea protein NUTRALYS? S85F. This shows that the pea protein NUTRALYS? S85F is the slowest emulsifier for migrating at the interface of the fat globules.

[0790] In contrast, recipe No. 3 (with the pea protein isolate No. 2 in accordance with the invention) is just as good an emulsifier as the recipe containing 100% milk protein.

[0791] The pea protein isolate No. 1 in accordance with the invention is less emulsifying than the pea protein isolate No. 2 in accordance with the invention after homogenization, but has a tendency ta become just as good after maturation.

Example 10: Total Substitution of Milk Protein for the Pea Protein Isolates in Ice Creams/Iced Desserts

[0792] Three recipes were developed for these vegan ice creams: [0793] Control: 100% pea protein NUTRALYS? S85F; [0794] Recipe 1: 100% pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention, [0795] Recipe 2: 100% pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention

TABLE-US-00031 Control Recipe 1 Recipe 2 Water 64.25 64.25 64.25 Sucrose 12.00 12.00 12.00 Hydrogenated coconut oil 8.00 8.00 8.00 Glucose syrup Roquette 4280 11.50 11.50 11.50 NUTRALYS? S85F 3.50 0.00 0.00 Stabilizers 0.25 0.25 0.25 (CREMODAN SE30) Vanilla flavoring 0.50 0.50 0.50 IFF 10836706 Pea protein isolate No. 1 0.00 3.50 0.00 according to the invention Pea protein isolate No. 2 0.00 0.00 3.50 according to the invention Total 100% 100% 100%

[0796] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0797] The nutritional values (per 100 g) are as follows:

TABLE-US-00032 Control Recipe 1 Recipe 2 Energy value (kcal) 172 172 172 Total fat 8.5 8.5 8.5 of which saturated fat 7.6 7.6 7.6 Carbohydrates, without fiber 21.2 21.2 21.2 of which sugars 14.6 14.6 14.6 Fiber 0.1 0.1 0.1 Protein 2.8 2.8 2.8 Salt (sodium ? 2.5) 0.11 0.14 0.14 Solids 33.1 33.2 33.2

[0798] The manufacturing process is as follows: [0799] Heat the water to 45? C., [0800] Mix the ingredients, [0801] Mix the stabilizers with the sucrose, [0802] Add the water and mix for 20 minutes; [0803] Introduce the fat (melted coconut oil) and mix, [0804] Pasteurize at 80? C. for 3 minutes, [0805] Cool to 70? C. [0806] Homogenize the mixture at 200 bar (in two stages)30% in the 2.sup.nd stage, [0807] Add the flavoring, [0808] Leave to mature with stirring at 4? C. for 20 minutes, [0809] Beat to between 90-100% and cool at ?30? C. for 1 hour, [0810] Store at ?18? C.

Analyses

Measurement of the Overrun Power (Iced Desserts)

[0811] Weight of an empty crucible of given volume V, [0812] Measured mas =m.sub.c in which m.sub.c is the mass of the empty crucible [0813] Weight of a crucible of given volume V, filled to the brim with the mixture before overrun [0814] Measured mass=m.sub.c+m.sub.mix in which m.sub.mix is the mass of mixture corresponding to the volume V [0815] Weight of a crucible of given volume V, filled to the brim with the mixture after overrun (taken from the freezer) [0816] Measured mass=m.sub.c+m.sub.ice in which m.sub.ice is the mass of ice (overrun mixture taken from the freezer) corresponding to the volume V.

[0817] The overrun measurement is then given by the formula:

[00005]$\mathrm{Overrun}=\frac{\left(m_{\mathrm{mix}}-m_{\mathrm{ice}}\right)}{m_{\mathrm{ice}}}?100$

Characterization of the Preparation Process

[0818]

TABLE-US-00033 Control Recipe 1 Recipe 2 pH after maturation 7.25 6.84 6.89 Density of the mixture (g/ml) 1.05 1.06 1.07 Overrun power (%) 89 80 101 Temperature on leaving ?5 ?4.8 ?4.8 the freezer

Viscosity Measurement

[0819] Measurements taken at 4? C. [0820] Rheometer: Physica MCR 301:Anton Paar [0821] Geometry: concentric cylinder CC27 [0822] Nominal value: 0 to 200 s.sup.?1 in 5 minutes

TABLE-US-00034 Before maturation Viscosity (mPa .Math. s) Reference 10 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 200 s.sup.?1 Control 131 60 50 Recipe 1 23 51 40 Recipe 2 22 50 39

TABLE-US-00035 After maturation Viscosity (mPa .Math. s) Reference 10 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 200 s.sup.?1 Control 120 65 56 Recipe 1 76 50 48 Recipe 2 74 50 44

[0823] It is thus noted that the viscosity is lower when the recipe comprises pea protein isolates according to the invention.

Measurement of the Texture

[0824] Measurement temperature: on leaving the freezer, [0825] Rheometer: INSTRON 9506 machine [0826] Geometry: conical [0827] Nominal value: imposed deformation up to 20 minutes,

TABLE-US-00036 Freezer storage time Hardness (N) before measurement 7 days 14 days 30 days Control 38.4 42.7 60.5 Recipe 1 126.2 128.4 137 Recipe 2 76 67.9 63

[0828] It is found that the hardness is globally better for the recipes with the pea protein isolates according to the invention. More particularly, the pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention has a remarkably high hardness, no doubt in relation to its higher overrun power (101%).

Measurement of the Size of the Emulsion of the Mixture and of the Iced Dessert

Protocol:

[0829] MALVERN 3000 liquid-route particle size analyzer (granulometer) (the solvent is demineralized water) [0830] Optical model: 1.46+0.001i with a stirring speed of 1900 rpm.

[0831] The mixtures before and after maturation are characterized with and without SDS: [0832] Without SDS: the sample is introduced directly into the particle size analyzer beaker containing only water, [0833] With SDS: 0.1%, i.e. 0.6 g, of SDS is introduced directly into the beaker of the particle size analyzer After dissolution of the SDS, the sample is added for analysis.

[0834] The final ice cream is introduced unthawed into the bowl of the particle size analyzer. After melting and dispersing the ice cream, the measurement is taken.

[0835] The size of the emulsion, before and after maturation, with and without SDS, is given in the following table.

TABLE-US-00037 Before maturation, Dx (10) Dx (50) Dx (90) Dmode D (4.3) without SDS ?m ?m ?m ?m ?m Control 0.073 0.377 3.380 0.429 1.410 Recipe 1 0.693 10.300 22.200 13.000 11.400 Recipe 2 0.520 8.400 18.200 10.000 9.310

[0836] Without SDS, the emulsion of the mixture containing pea protein (control) has a smaller particle size than the emulsions prepared from the pea protein isolates according to the invention.

TABLE-US-00038 Before maturation, Dx (10) Dx (50) Dx (90) Dmode D (4.3) with SDS ?m ?m ?m ?m ?m Control 0.103 0.340 1.010 0.389 0.698 Recipe 1 0.065 0.605 5.110 0.621 1.650 Recipe 2 0.115 0.503 1.830 0.564 0.913

[0837] With SDS, the fat agglomerates are dispersed, and the Dmode is thus closer for the three fests. It should be noted that the formulation with the pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention has a particle size analysis peak with larger particles.

TABLE-US-00039 After maturation, Dx (10) Dx (50) Dx (90) Dmode D (4.3) without SDS ?m ?m ?m ?m ?m Control 0.085 0.379 2.690 0.433 1.210 Recipe 1 0.102 5.300 16.200 8.470 6.780 Recipe 2 0.088 4.460 15.400 7.820 6.150

TABLE-US-00040 After maturation, Dx (10) Dx (50) Dx (90) Dmode D (4.3) with SDS ?m ?m ?m ?m ?m Control 0.103 0.329 0.894 0.381 0.658 Recipe 1 0.039 0.509 4.830 0.616 1.620 Recipe 2 0.098 0.504 2.070 0.573 1.110

[0838] No major change is observed after maturation. The formulations with the pea protein isolates according to the invention are more polydisperse than the formulation with the pea proteins.

[0839] The emulsion size of the ice cream, in unmodified form, is measured without the presence of SDS.

TABLE-US-00041 Dx (10) Dx (50) Dx (90) Dmode D (4.3) Without SDS ?m ?m ?m ?m ?m Control 0.092 0.333 3.950 0.352 2.390 Recipe 1 0.131 0.776 15.900 0.531 5.820 Recipe 2 0.178 0.814 51.400 0.518 14.500

[0840] The size of the major peak (Dmode) is similar for the three ice creams. However, the formulations with the pea protein isolates according to the invention are more polydisperse, especially with the isolate No. 2.

[0841] A comparative study was performed with commercial ice creams, which show that these ice creams contain an even larger number of coarse particles than the control recipes and recipes 1 and 2 in relation to their high content of fat globules.

Measurement of the Melting Behavior

Protocol:

[0842] Empirically, samples of iced desserts of a given volume are placed on a grille above a beaker. The following are then measured: [0843] The time after which the first drop falls into the beaker, [0844] The percentage of ice cream melted over time, over 3 hours.

[0845] FIG. 12 clearly illustrates the fact that the melting is lesser for the ice creams prepared with the pea protein isolates according to the invention.

Sensory Analysis

[0846] The panel consisted of 15 people.

[0847] The panel, as in the preceding examples, is qualified for tasting products formulated with pea protein. It received training so as to check its performance in terms of: [0848] Capacity to discriminate the products [0849] Consensus, correct use of the descriptors [0850] Repeatability, ability to detect a product submitted twice.

[0851] When compared with the ice creams prepared with pea protein, those of the invention are less bitter, have less of a pea taste and are less colored.

[0852] The iced desserts with the pea protein isolates No. 1 according to the invention have a few ice crystals and a more pronounced vanilla taste, are sweeter, and fatter than the offer products.

[0853] The iced desserts with the pea protein isolates No. 2 according to the invention are sweet and fatty, and more creamy. They have a slightly more pronounced green tea taste.

Conclusion

[0854] During the process of manufacturing the iced desserts, the pea protein isolates according to the invention lead to a lower viscosity in comparison with pea protein.

[0855] The texture of isolate No. 1 is harder, but is not perceived by the panellists.

[0856] The two isolates lead above all to lowering the melting of the corresponding iced desserts.

[0857] In terms of taste, the best perception is for the iced desserts prepared with isolate No. 1, of sweet taste and pronounced flavor, less bitterness and less pea taste.

Example 11: Comparison of the Sensory Properties of Ice Creams

[0858] The panel consisted of 20 people.

[0859] The panel is qualified for tasting products formulated with pea protein. It received training so as to check its performance in terms of: [0860] Capacity to discriminate the products [0861] Consensus, correct use of the descriptors [0862] Repeatability, ability to detect a product submitted twice

[0863] Specifically, it received training in the correct use of the sensory descriptors of taste and texture, for instance:

TABLE-US-00042 Descriptor Definition Procedure Reference Flavors Pea taste Typical pea taste. Taste the product. Pea Sweet Elementary taste generated Taste the product. Caster sugar by a sucrose solution. Mouthfeel Hard Evaluation of the force required Press a product unit between Confectionery to obtain deformation or rupture the incisors. of cooked of the product. sugar type (not hard/very hard) Aerated Evaluation of the amount of air Explore visually and by touch Chocolate bubbles trapped and visible. by placing a finger parallel to mousse (not aerated/very aerated) the surface state and exert different pressures from top to bottom. Aqueous Evaluation of the surface texture Taste a product unit and Watermelon property qualifying the evaluate the amount of water perception of the amount of perceived in the mouth. water released by a product. (not aqueous/very aqueous) Water Evaluation of the presence of Rub the tongue against the Recrystallized crystals water crystals palate and check whether the ice (no crystals/many crystals) product contains crystals Greasy Evaluation of the greasy film After swallowing a product Olive oil after swallowing. unit, evaluate the presence or (not greasy/very greasy) absence of a greasy film on the palate or on the teeth by sweeping over their surface with the tongue.

[0864] The method also allows them to make comments on other descriptors that were not anticipated in this list.

Products

[0865] The ice creams are recipes No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 those of Example 9.

Tasting Conditions

[0866] In a sensory analysis laboratory: individual tasting cubicles, white walls, calm environment (to facilitate concentration) [0867] White light (to have exactly the same vision of the product) [0868] At the end of the morning or the afternoon (to be at the height of the sensory capacities) [0869] Products rendered anonymous with a three-figure code (to prevent the code from influencing the assessment of the products) [0870] Products presented in a random order (to prevent order and persistence effects)

Exercise

[0871] The method employed to compare the products was the Flash Profile (J. M. Sieffermann, 2000).

[0872] The products are all presented simultaneously. It is a matter of comparing the products by making a succession of classifications: the panellists choose the descriptors which appear to them to be the most pertinent to discriminate between the products, and classify the products according to these descriptors; it is possible that several products are grouped in the same row.

Example

[0873] Sensory descriptor: Crunchy

Data Processing

[0874] The statistical processing method suited to this type of data is multiple factor analysis (J. Pag?s, 1994) on the data-rows of the products. In order for the results to be clearer, the MFA was performed several times; globally, and per criterion (aspect, odor, taste, texture). The graphs presented summarize all of the results provided by this method.

[0875] The analyses were performed using the R software (on open sale): [0876] R-version 2.14.1 (2011 Dec. 22) [0877] Copyright (C) 2011 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing [0878] ISBN 3-900051-07-0 [0879] 20 Platform: 1386-pc-mingw32/i386 (32-bit)

[0880] The software is a working environment which requires the loading of modules containing the calculation functions such as the FactoMineR version 1.19 package.

Results

[0881] The results are shown in FIG. 13.

[0882] The three samples are all evaluated in terms of creamy texture, cold and fondant and in terms of pea, vanilla and bitter taste.

[0883] However, a few descriptors allow them to be differentiated: [0884] The ice cream with NUTRALYS? S85F appears harder with a pea and cardboard taste. [0885] The one with pea protein isolate No. 1 in accordance with the invention is more greasy and aerated with a walnut note.

[0886] The one with pea protein isolate No. 2 in accordance with the invention is judged to be sweeter.

Example 12: Use of the Pea Protein Isolates in Non-Dairy Coffee Creamer/Whitener Matrices

a. 100% Substitution for Sodium Caseinates

[0887] The object here is to substitute 100% of the sodium caseinates and to obtain a product that is stable in coffee.

[0888] Measurement of the viscosity of the emulsions after pasteurization and measurement of the stability in coffee make it possible to illustrate the improvement in the functional properties of the pea protein isolates relative to NUTRALYS? in their ability to substitute for sodium caseinates.

[0889] The recipes developed are as follows:

TABLE-US-00043 Recipe 2 Recipe 3 Recipe 1 100% 100% (Control pea protein pea protein Recipe) isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 Recipe 4 100% according according 100% sodium to the to the NUTRALYS? caseinate invention invention S85F (60% solids) (60% solids) (60% solids) (60% solids) % % % % Glucose syrup 3072 45.85 45.85 45.85 45.85 (Roquette FRERES) Hydrogenated coconut 23.36 23.36 23.36 23.36 oil 32-34 (Dislab) NUTRALYS? S85F 1.75 batch WB67J Pea protein isolate No. 1 1.75 according to the invention Pea protein isolate No. 2 1.75 according to the invention Sodium caseinate EM7 1.75 (DMV) K.sub.2HPO.sub.4_E340 (Merck) 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 Dimodan HP_E471 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 (Danisco) Water 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

[0890] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0891] The manufacturing process is as follows: [0892] Melt the fat at 80? with constant stirring, [0893] Add the Dimodan HP to the melted fat to dissolve the monoglycerides, [0894] Heat 90% of the water to 50? C. and add the proteins. Hydrate with constant stirring for 30 minutes, [0895] Dissolve the phosphate salts in the residual water at 40? C., [0896] After 30 minutes of hydration, add the glucose syrup and the phosphate salts to the main mixture, [0897] Pre-emulsify the mixture of fat/Dimodan HP in the main mixture for 5 minutes at 10 000 rpm, [0898] Place the product at 75? C. in a Niro Panda 2K Soavi (GEA) high-pressure homogenizer at a pressure of 160 bar in the first stage, and 30 bar in the second stage, [0899] Pasteurize at 80? C. for a few seconds and then place the product in cold water to stop the heat treatment.

[0900] The analyses performed on the formulation are as follows:

1. Viscosity Analysis

[0901] The viscosity measurements on the concentrated emulsions after the heat treatment step are performed at 65? C., the usual atomization temperature,

Apparatus:

[0902] Physica MCR 301 Anton Paar rheometer [0903] Geometry: CC27

[0904] Method 0 to 1000 s.sup.?1 in 660 s

[0905] The results obtained on the various recipes are as follows:

TABLE-US-00044 Viscosity (mPa .Math. s) 5 s?1 10 s?1 40 s?1 100 s?1 1000 s?1 Control recipe 89 69 47 44 42 Recipe 2 77 59 40 34 24 Recipe 3 77 60 42 36 26 Recipe 4 775 530 270 197 85

[0906] The viscosities of the emulsions of recipes 2 and 3 after pasteurization are closer to the milk control than that of recipe 4 prepared with pea protein, which makes it possible to dry a low-viscosity emulsion with a high solids content as here at 60% by weight.

2. Solubility as a Function of the pH

[0907]

TABLE-US-00045 Pea protein Pea protein isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 Sodium NUTRALYS according to according to caseinate S85F the invention the invention EM7 (DMV) pH 3 50.3 53.3 58.9 82.0 pH 4 15.2 39.7 38.6 7.0 pH 5 11.3 37.7 36.8 9.0 pH 6 21.2 50.3 53.9 94.0 pH 7 36.8 54.8 59.9 94.0 pH 8 55.1 57.4 62.4 94.0

[0908] FIG. 14 illustrates the change in solubility of the pea protein isolates according to the invention relative to caseinate, as a function of the pH, and reflects their excellent behavior.

Evaluation of the Stability in Coffee

Reconstitution of Coffee

[0909] Weigh out 2 g of soluble coffee: [0910] heat drinking water (calcium content of 136 mg and magnesium content of 60 mg) at 80? C. and add 135 g of said water to the 2 g, [0911] add 12.7 g of concentrated emulsion to the coffee.

[0912] The flocculation in the coffee appears to be less substantial with the recipes containing the pea protein isolates according to the invention, relative to that obtained with pea protein. However, this may be correlated with the improvement in solubility of said isolates relative to pea protein.

a. 50% Substitution for Sodium Caseinates

[0913] The object here is to substitute 50% of the sodium caseinates and to obtain a product that is stable in coffee.

[0914] Measurement of the viscosity of the emulsions after pasteurization and measurement of the stability in coffee make it possible to illustrate the improvement in the functional properties of the pea protein isolates relative to NUTRALYS? in their ability to substitute for sodium caseinates.

[0915] The recipes developed are as follows:

TABLE-US-00046 Recipe 2 50% pea protein Recipe 3 Recipe 1 isolate No. 2 50% (Control Recipe) according to the NUTRALYS? 100% invention + 50% S85F + 50% sodium caseinate sodium caseinate sodium caseinate (60% solids) (60% solids) (60% solids) % % % Glucose syrup 3072 45.85 45.85 45.85 (Roquette FRERES) Hydrogenated coconut oil 23.36 23.36 23.36 32-34 (Dislab) NUTRALYS? S85F 0.87 batch WB67J Pea protein isolate No. 2 0.87 according to the invention Sodium caseinate EM7 1.75 0.88 0.88 (DMV) Joha@ KM2_E339_E452_E331 1.46 1.46 1.46 Dimodan HP_E471 (Danisco) 0.58 0.58 0.58 Water 27.00 27.00 27.00 TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00

[0916] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[0917] The nutritional values per 100 g are as follows.

TABLE-US-00047 Recipes Recipe No. Recipe 1 2 and 3 Moisture content (%) 40 40 Calorific energy 369 369 (kCal) per 100 g Fat (g) 24.0 24.0 Protein content (g) 1.6 1.5 Of which milk protein 1.6 0.8 Pea protein isolates 0 0.7 Carbohydrates (g) 33.0 33.0 Of which sugars 5.3 5.3

[0918] The manufacturing process is as follows: [0919] Melt the fat at 80? with constant stirring, [0920] Dissolve the monoglycerides and diglycerides in the liquid oil, [0921] Dissolve the powdered protein in water at 50? C. over 30 minutes, [0922] Add the glucose syrup and the phosphate salts already dissolved in part of the water, [0923] Pre-emulsify the melted fat in the aqueous solution by stirring at 10 000 rpm, [0924] Pasteurize at 80? C. for a few seconds, [0925] Place the product at 75? C. in a Niro Panda 2K Soavi (GEA) high-pressure homogenizer at a pressure of 160 bar in the first stage, and 30 bar in the second stage, [0926] Dilute the mixture to 50% solids to atomize at 180? C. (T.sub.inlet) and 90? C. (T.sub.outlet) in the device with an evaporation capacity of 10 to 12 l/h.

[0927] The analyses performed on the formulation are as follows:

1) pH of the Emulsion

[0928]

TABLE-US-00048 pH Recipe 1 Recipe 2 Recipe 3 On the emulsion 7.69 9.24 8.72 at 25? C. On coffee at 75? C. 6.45 6.35 6.10

2) Capacity of the Emulsion

[0929] Measurement of the size of the lipid globules (with a laser particle size analyzer) makes it possible to determine the capacity of the pea protein isolates according to the invention to form lipid globules of the smallest possible size.

TABLE-US-00049 Dx(10) Dx(50) Dx(90) D[4.3] Mode (?m) (?m) (?m) (?m) (?m) Recipe 1 0.281 0.577 1.23 0.681 0.551 Recipe 2 0.289 0.563 1.10 0.668 0.559 Recipe 3 0.279 0.564 1.23 1.15 0.534

[0930] These results clearly show that the 50/50 mixture has a particle size distribution similar to the 100% caseinate control.

3) Viscosity of the Emulsions Containing 60% Solids at 65? C. (Before Atomization)

Apparatus:

[0931] Physica MCR 301 Anton Paar rheometer [0932] Geometry: CC27 [0933] Method 0 to 1000 s.sup.?1 in 660 s

TABLE-US-00050 Viscosity (mPa .Math. s) 5 s.sup.?1 10 s.sup.?1 40 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 Recipe 1 89 69 47 44 Recipe 2 49 48 43 39 Recipe 3 170 132 89 77

[0934] The lowest viscosity of the 50/50 mixture makes it possible to atomize at a solids content higher than that conventionally required for caseinates.

4) Stabilization of Powdered Non-Dairy Coffee Creamer in Coffee

Reconstitution of Coffee:

[0935] a. Weigh out 2 g of soluble coffee [0936] b. Add 8 g of emulsion and 150 ml of drinking water (calcium content of 136 mg and magnesium content of 60 mg) at 80? C.

[0937] The stability of the emulsion in coffee is determined by measuring the color variation of the preparationcolor measurement according to the L (white balance), a (yellow balance) and b (green balance) coordinates, the white color in coffee being one of the key criteria sought by manufacturers and consumers.

[0938] A difference of 2 points for the measurement of the L parameter of the coffees prepared with the 50/50 mixture (L=+96) with regard to the control coffees prepared with caseinates (L=+98) reflects the excellent stability of the mixture with the pea protein isolates in accordance with the invention.

Example 13. Use of the Pea Protein Isolates for the Preparation of Stirred Yoghurts

[0939] The object here is to replace 3 of the milk protein.

[0940] The recipes developed are as follows:

TABLE-US-00051 Recipe with pea protein isolate No. 1 in accordance Recipe with with the Recipe with Control pea protein invention pea protein In % recipe Recipe 1 Recipe 2 Recipe 3 Reconstituted skimmed milk 88.80 74.50 74.50 74.50 Cream (Les fayes 35% fat) 2.75 2.42 2.42 2.42 Sugar 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Modified starch CLEARAM? 1.50 3.20 3.20 3.20 CR 4015 from Roquette Fr?res NUTRALYS? S85F 1.40 NUTRALYS? F85F 1.40 Pea protein isolate No. 1 1.40 according to the invention PROMILK 852 A Ingredia 0.77 Pectin CM 020 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 HERBSTREITH & FOX Water 12.32 12.32 12.32 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100

[0941] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

TABLE-US-00052 Solids 17.73 18.28 18.31 18.28 Total protein 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 Dairy protein 3.70 2.58 2.58 2.58 Plant protein 0.00 1.12 1.12 1.12 Lipids 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Carbohydrates 12.30 12.99 12.99 12.99 of which sugars 10.98 10.14 10.14 10.14 Kcal/100 g 73.10 75.84 75.86 75.84 Degree of substitution 0.00 30.19 30.19 30.19

[0942] The manufacturing process is as follows: [0943] heat water to 60? C.;, [0944] add the proteins and leave to hydrate for 1 hour; [0945] add the cream while mixing with a POLYTRON homogenizer for 2 minutes, [0946] add the sugar/starch mixture over 10 to 15 minutes, [0947] homogenize at high pressure (two stages: 1.sup.st stage 180 bar-2.sup.nd stage 200 bar) at 75-80? C., [0948] pasteurize with a Power Point International tubular exchanger at 95? C., 6 minutes20 l/h, [0949] add the ferments (YoFlex?) YF-L81260 U/250 L), acidity at 42? C. to PH 4.5 (acidification time of 5-6 hours), [0950] stir at 3600 rpm and at 42? C., [0951] smooth at 37/38? C. at 3600 rpm with a Spindle 2G [0952] place in a pot and store at 4? C.

Viscosity Measurement

[0953]

TABLE-US-00053 Temperature measurement: 13? C. Rheometer: Physica MCR 301 Anton Paar Geometry: CC27 Method: 0 to 350 s.sup.?1 in 180 s and return from 350 s.sup.?1 to 0 in 180 s

[0954] The values are given to within ?5%.

TABLE-US-00054 D + 3 Hysteresis Viscosity (mPa .Math. s) area Reference 5 s.sup.?1 10 s.sup.?1 40 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 350 s.sup.?1 (Pa) Recipe 2 4.3 2.6 1.03 0.53 0.2 4130 Recipe 1 3.9 2.38 0.98 0.52 0.21 3335 Recipe 3 3.76 2.3 0.97 0.53 0.22 2610 Control recipe 3.12 2.1 0.79 0.4 0.15 2420

TABLE-US-00055 D + 7 Hysteresis Viscosity (mPa .Math. s) area Reference 5 s.sup.?1 10 s.sup.?1 40 s?1 100 s.sup.?1 350 s.sup.?1 (Pa) Recipe 2 4.12 2.49 1.02 0.535 0.212 3710 Recipe 1 3.26 2.21 0.84 0.41 0.16 2551 Recipe 3 3.71 2.29 0.96 0.52 0.21 2905 Control recipe 4.17 2.51 1.02 0.53 0.2 4200

TABLE-US-00056 D + 14 Hysteresis Viscosity (mPa .Math. s) area Reference 5 s.sup.?1 10 s.sup.?1 40 s.sup.?1 100 s.sup.?1 350 s.sup.?1 (Pa) Recipe 2 3.93 2.38 0.99 0.524 0.21 3260 Recipe 1 3.54 2.17 0.94 0.52 0.22 2420 Recipe 3 4.13 2.51 1.02 0.51 0.19 4860 Control recipe 2.74 1.82 0.7 0.35 0.138 2200

[0955] Recipe 3 has the closest behavior to the control recipe but with, however, inversion of the viscosity curve relative to the change in viscosity of the control recipe at D+7 and D+14.

[0956] Specifically, recipe 3 regains in viscosity at D+14, and is the most resistant to shear at D+14.

[0957] Recipe 1 is more viscous and resistant to shear than recipe 3 at D+7, but this reverses from D+14.

[0958] Recipe 2 with the pea protein isolate in accordance with the invention is the most viscous of the four recipes, and is more viscous than the control recipe. Its viscosity decreases over time.

[0959] These results demonstrate that, by virtue of its behavior, the pea protein isolate in accordance with the invention would make it possible to decrease the amount of starch in this recipe if it is desired to make it resemble the viscosity of the control recipe.

[0960] The same goes, but to a lesser extent, for recipes 1 and 3.

Example 14: Comparison of the Sensory Properties of Stirred Yoghurts

[0961] For the taste evaluation, the panel consisted of 11 people. For the texture evaluation, the panel consisted of 12 people.

[0962] The panels are qualified for tasting products formulated with pea protein. They received training so as to check their performance in terms of: [0963] Capacity to discriminate the products [0964] Consensus, correct use of the descriptors [0965] Repeatability, ability to detect a product submitted twice

[0966] Specifically, they received training in the correct use of the sensory descriptors of taste and texture, for instance:

Taste Descriptors:

[0967]

TABLE-US-00057 flavor/odor taste/ milky vegetable flavor off flavor mouthfeel milk pea/vegetable AG vanilla paper/ acidic cardboard whey cereals caramel detergent bitter fermented milk vegetable chemical salty reconstituted fresh walnut glue astringent/ baby milk drying yoghurt potato metallic sweet butter spicy

Texture Descriptors

[0968]

TABLE-US-00058 Descriptor Definition Procedure Reference Appearance Glossy Glossy or lustrous Explore the prodcut visually. Raw egg yolk appearance resulting from the tendency of a surface to reflect light. (not glossy/very glossy) Granular Evaluation of the granular Explore the prodcut visually. Brown sugar nature and of the number and size of particles of a product. (not granular/very granular) Texture on a spoon Gelled Evaluation of the consistency Explore the prodcut visually. Gelatin of the product. (not gelled/very gelled) Thick Evaluation of the consistency Take up a product unit with a Honey of the product. spoon. Raise and turn the spoon (not thick/very thick) over. Check the flowability. Runny Evaluation the capacity to Apply the spoon perpendicular to Water trickle without dividing the surface, place under pressure into drops. and gently withdraw it vertically. (not runny/very runny) Coating Evaluation of the capacity to Apply the spoon perpendicular to Custard form a coat on the back of the surface and gently withdraw the spoon. it vertically. (not coating/very coating) Mouthfeel Aqueous Evaluation of the texture Taste a product unit and evaluate Watermelon property of the surface the amount of water perceived in qualifying the perception of the mouth. the amount of water released by a product. (not aqueous/very aqueous) Drying Evaluate the texture Chew a product unit and check Cranberry juice property describing the whether the inside of the mouth perception of the absorption becomes dry. of moisture by the product. (not drying/very drying) Greasy Evaluation the greasy film After swallowing a product unit, Olive oil after swallowing. evaluate the presence or absence (not greasy/very greasy) of a greasy film on the palate or teeth by sweeping over their surface with the tongue. Creamy Evaluation of the soft and Chew a product unit and check Cr?me fra?che, fondant texture the product. whether it causes a soft contact double cream (not creamy/very creamy) and whether it lines the mouth. Thick Evaluation of the ease of the Rub the tongue against the palate Sweet and product to flow in the mouth. and check whether the product concentrated flows easily. milk, honey (not thick/very thick) Tacky Evaluation of the force After chewing a few times Soft caramel required to detach products successively, press the product that adhere to the inside of between the teeth and measure the oral cavity. the force required for it to be (not tacky/very tacky) detached from the teeth. Granular Evaluation of the granular Rub the tongue against the palate Brown sugar nature and of the number and check whether the product and size of particles contains particles. of a product. (not granular/very granular)

Products

[0969] The three products tested of example 11 (control recipe, recipe 1 and recipe 2) were evaluated three days after being produced and were presented at a temperature of about 10? C. (products stored in a refrigerator, evaluated when taken out).

Tasting Conditions

[0970] In a sensory analysis laboratory: individual tasting cubicles, white walls, calm environment (to facilitate concentration) [0971] White light (to have exactly the same vision of the product) [0972] At the end of the morning or the afternoon (to be at the height of the sensory capacities) [0973] Products rendered anonymous with a three-figure code (to prevent the code from influencing the assessment of the products) [0974] Products presented in a random order (to prevent order and persistence effects)

Exercise

[0975] The method employed to compare the products was the Flash Profile (J. M. Sieffermann, 2000).

[0976] The products are all presented simultaneously. It is a matter of comparing the products by making a succession of classifications: the panellists choose the descriptors which appear to them to be the most pertinent to discriminate between the products, and classify the products according to these descriptors; it is possible that several products are grouped in the same row.

Example

[0977] Sensory descriptor: Crunchy

[0978] Two lists of descriptors, relating to the taste or to the texture, were proposed to the panelists as a guide: they are attached in the appendix of this report.

Data Processing

[0979] The statistical processing method suited to this type of data is multiple factor analysis (J. Pag?s, 1994) on the data-rows of the products. In order for the results to be clearer, the MFA was performed several times; globally, and per criterion (aspect, odor, taste, texture). The graphs presented summarize all of the results provided by this method.

[0980] The statistical processing was performed with the software R version 2.14.1 (2011 Dec. 22).

Results:

[0981] The results are presented in FIG. 15 (taste) and 16 (texture): [0982] The stirred yoghurt containing NUTRALYS? S85F has a runny and granular texture in the mouth accompanied by a pea, cardboard, fresh walnut taste; [0983] The yoghurt with milk protein appears more fatty and creamy, thick with a granular aspect, its taste is more typical of yoghurt, sweet and milky; [0984] The yoghurt with the pea protein isolate No. 1 in accordance with the invention lies between the control and the tests with NUTRALYS? S85F, and stands out by having a cereal and fermented milk taste and also a particularly coating texture in the mouth.

Example 15. Use of the Pea Protein Isolates for the Preparation of Strawberry-Flavored Dairy Beverages

[0985] The object here is to replace 50% of the milk protein.

[0986] The recipes developed are as follows:

TABLE-US-00059 50% Substitution 50% 100% with the pea Substitution control protein isolate with The amounts Milk No. 1 according NUTRALYS? being given as protein to the invention S85F weight percentages % % % UHT skimmed milk 86.7 56.1 56.1 Water 28.3 28.3 Sucrose 5.80 7.20 7.20 Cream (35% fat) METRO 4.70 4.20 4.20 Milk protein concentrate 4892 1.05 (Fonterra) NUTRALYS? S85F batch WB67J 2.40 Pea protein isolate No. 1 according 2.40 to the invention Strawberry puree (Metro) 1.35 1.35 1.35 Modified starch CLEARAM? CH 0.40 0.40 0.40 3020-Roquette Fr?res Strawberry flavoring (M_0051126) 0.005 0.005 0.005 Colorant E124 (diluted tenfold) 0.013 0.013 0.013 TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00

[0987] The manufacturing process is as follows: [0988] heat milk and water to 50? C., [0989] add the protein to the mixture, [0990] hydrate for 1 hour at 50? C. with stirring, [0991] preheat the fat to 50? C. after 45 minutes, [0992] add the sugar and starch to the main preparation, [0993] add the colorant, the flavoring and the strawberry puree to the main preparation, [0994] mix for 5 minutes, [0995] pre-emulsify the fat in the main preparation for 5 minutes at 10 000 rpm, [0996] homogenize the product online at 65? C.-190 bar (two stages) [0997] sterilize the product at 30 liters/hour with a residence time of 7 seconds at 138? C. on a tubular exchanger [0998] cool to 40? C. and store at +4? C.

Example 16: Comparison of the Sensory Properties of Strawberry-Flavored Dairy Beverages

[0999] For the taste evaluation, the panel consisted of 12 people.

[1000] The panels are qualified for tasting products formulated with pea protein. They received training so as to check their performance in terms of: [1001] Capacity to discriminate the products [1002] Consensus, correct use of the descriptors [1003] Repeatability, ability to detect a product submitted twice

[1004] Specifically, they received training in the correct use of the sensory descriptors of taste and texture, for instance:

List of Descriptors:

[1005]

TABLE-US-00060 Descriptor Definition Procedure Reference Appearance Smooth absence of heterogeneous Explore the product Liquid matrix: particles at the surface visually. pure water of the product Powder matrix: (not smooth/very smooth) icing sugar Glossy Glossy or lustrous appearance Explore the product Raw egg yolk resulting from the tendency of visually. a surface to reflect light. (not glossy/very glossy) Mouthfeel Thick Evaluation of the ease of the Rub the tongue against the Sweetened product flow in the mouth. palate and check whether concentrated milk, (not thick/very thick) the product flows easily. honey Aqueous Evaluation of the surface Taste a product unit and Watermelon texture property qualifying the evaluate the amount of perception of the amount of water perceived in the mouth. water released by a product. (not aqueous/very aqueous) Creamy Evaluation of the soft and Chew a product unit and Cr?me fra?che, fondant texture of the product. check whether it causes a thick cream (not creamy/very creamy) soft contact and whether it lines the mouth. Sandy Evaluation of the granular Chew a product unit until it Certain pears nature and of the number of is ready to swallow and particles of a product. evaluate the perception of (not sandy/very sandy) small grains in the mouth.
Odor and taste

TABLE-US-00061 flavor/odor taste/ milky vegetable flavor off flavor mouthfeel milk pea/vegetable GA vanilla paper/ acidic cardboard whey cereals strawberry detergent bitter fermented milk vegetable chemical salty reconstituted fresh walnut glue astringent/ baby milk drying yoghurt potato metallic sweet butter spicy

Tasting Conditions

[1006] In a sensory analysis laboratory: individual tasting cubicles, white walls, calm environment (to facilitate concentration) [1007] White light (to have exactly the same vision of the product) [1008] At the end of the morning or the afternoon (to be at the height of the sensory capacities) [1009] Products rendered anonymous with a three-figure code (to prevent the code from influencing the assessment of the products) [1010] Products presented in a random order (to prevent order and persistence effects)

Exercise

[1011] The method employed to compare the products was the Flash Profile (J. M. Sieffermann, 2000).

[1012] The products are all presented simultaneously. It is a matter of comparing the products by making a succession of classifications: the panellists choose the descriptors which appear to them to be the most pertinent to discriminate between the products, and classify the products according to these descriptors; it is possible that several products are grouped in the same row.

Example

[1013] Sensory descriptor: Crunchy

[1014] Two lists of descriptors, relating to the taste or to the texture, were proposed to the panellists as a guide: they are attached in the appendix of this report.

Data Processing

[1015] The statistical processing method suited to this type of data is multiple factor analysis (J. Pag?s, 1994) on the data-rows of the products. In order for the results to be clearer, the MFA was performed several times; globally, and per criterion (aspect, odor, taste, texture). The graphs presented summarize all of the results provided by this method.

[1016] The statistical processing was performed with the software R version 2.14.1 (2011 Dec. 22).

Results:

[1017] The results are presented in FIG. 17 (taste) and 18 (aspect and texture in the mouth).

[1018] In terms of taste, the panellists clearly identified the control by qualifying it as more sweet, milky (odor and taste), and strawberry (odor and taste) than the tests formulated with pea protein.

[1019] The test with the pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention is qualified in odor and taste as vegetable-cereal while maintaining a milky odor, whereas the test with NUTRALYS retains a vegetable-pea odor and taste.

[1020] In terms of texture, all the products were judged to be aqueous. Their characterization is essentially made on dimension 1; two families are then distinguished: [1021] the milk control, which is judged to be more coating in the mouth followed by the test with NUTRALYS?, [1022] the pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the invention is judged to be more greasy.

Example 17: Protein Enrichment of Biscuits (Intended for Specialized/Slimming or Sports Nutrition)

[1023]

TABLE-US-00062 NUTRALYS? Pea protein Pea protein S85F isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 Roquette NUTRALYS? according to according to Control Fr?res Pea-BF the invention the invention Water 6 7.4 6.7 6.5 6.5 Sodium bicarbonate 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Ammonium bicarbonate 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Sucrose 18 17.7 17.7 17.9 17.9 Glucose syrup 4779 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Roquette Fr?res Fat Biscuitine 500 13 12.8 12.8 12.9 12.9 Soybean lecithin 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Wheat flour 57.8 37.2 37.2 37.6 37.6 Test proteins 0 19.7 19.7 19.9 19.9 Skimmed milk powder 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Salt 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Sodium pyrophosphate 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Vanilla powder 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 100 100 100 100 100
The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[1024] The formulations have the following composition:

[1025] The nutritional values of these formulations are as follows:

TABLE-US-00063 NUTRALYS? Pea protein Pea protein S85F isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 Roquette NUTRALYS? according to according to Control Fr?res Pea-BF the invention the invention Calories (kCal) 462 472 472 472 472 Proteins 7.9 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 Fat 15.7 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 Carbohydrates 72.3 55.8 55.8 55.8 55.8 . . . of which DP1,2 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 Fiber 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 . . . insoluble 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 . . . soluble 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 kCal/protein (%) 7 20 20 20 20

[1026] The manufacturing process is as follows: [1027] Dissolve the sodium bicarbonate and the ammonium bicarbonate in water. Add the sugar and the glucose syrup and mix in a Hobart planetary mixer equipped with a flat paddle, for 1 minute at speed 1 to fully dissolve the sugars. [1028] Add the fat and the lecithin and mix for 2 minutes at speed 2. [1029] Add the rest of the powders in a single portion and mix for 2 minutes at speed 1 and then for 1 minute at speed 2. [1030] Leave the dough to stand for 15 minutes to complete the hydration of the powders and the homogeneity of the preparation. [1031] Place the dough in the hopper of the biscuit machine so that the dough is pressed in a mold cavity between two rollers so as to form the biscuits. [1032] Recover the biscuits on a conveyor belt, then place them on a baking tray. [1033] Bake in a MIWE Econo type fan oven for 9 minutes at 170? C. (fan speed 2).

[1034] The analyses performed are as follows:

[1035] One of the first important criteria in the production of biscuits on a biscuit machine is the machinability of the dough.

[1036] An over-hydrated dough will be tacky and will not detach from the mold cavities.

[1037] A dough that is too dry will not fill the mold cavities and will form biscuits with anomalies.

[1038] Adding a large amount of protein has an impact on the dough texture. The table below illustrates the hydration adjustments necessary to compensate for the incorporation of various proteins into a biscuit dough.

[1039] Specifically, proteins with a more or less substantial affinity for water will bind part of the water of the formulation. This water will then no longer be available to plasticize the dough, which will then be too dry to be formed. Increasing the hydration of the dough will then be essential to correct this defect.

TABLE-US-00064 NUTRALYS? Pea protein Pea protein S85F isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 Roquette NUTRALYS? according to according to Control Fr?res Pea-BF the invention the invention Percentage increase in 0 23.2 11.7 7.8 7.8 water in the recipe for the dough to be workable

[1040] Unfortunately, in a dry biscuit (less than 3% water in the finished product), it is not desirable to add too much water since this will have an impact on the baking time and conditions.

[1041] Furthermore, adding more water will have an effect on the kinetics of concentration and of recrystallization of the sugars. Now, this last point is a determining factor for the texture, especially the crunchiness, of a biscuit.

[1042] Proteins that are soluble but sparingly functional such as the pea protein isolates of the present invention thus make it possible to limit this correction to only +8% added water as opposed to 12% for a non-functional and insoluble protein and more than 23% for a soluble and functional protein.

[1043] A rapid sensory analysis performed on the biscuits produced gave the following results.

TABLE-US-00065 NUTRALYS? Pea protein Pea protein S85F isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 Roquette NUTRALYS? according to according to Control Fr?res Pea-BF the invention the invention Reference in Biscuits Sandy and pasty More crunchy More crunchy terms of texture sparingly biscuits. Less biscuits. Less pasty biscuits. Texture and taste crunchy, very crunchiness. Pea texture, no real pea less pasty than pasty in the after-taste. taste. NUTRALYS? BF mouth. Pea after-taste.

Example 18: Protein Enrichment of Chocolate Muffins (Intended for Specialized/Slimming or Sports Nutrition)

[1044] The formulations have the following composition:

TABLE-US-00066 NUTRALYS? NUTRALYS? Pea protein S85F XF isolate No. 2 Roquette Roquette according to Fr?res Fr?res the invention Whole wheat flour 120.0 120.0 120.0 SweetPearl? P200 210.0 210.0 210.0 Roquette Fr?res Skimmed milk powder 10.0 10.0 10.0 Coconut powder 15.0 15.0 15.0 (defatted) NUTRISOFT? 55 5.0 5.0 5.0 from Brenntag Baking powder 5 5 5 Test proteins 60.0 60.0 60.0 NUTRALYS? WF 60.0 60.0 60.0 Roquette Fr?res WPC 515 from 52.0 52.0 52.0 FONTERRA Salt 2.0 2.0 2.0 Plant oil 80.0 80.0 80.0 NEOSORB? 70/70 50.0 50.0 50.0 Roquette Fr?res Dark chocolate 20.0 20.0 20.0 Water 160.0 160.0 160.0 Vanilla extract 10.0 10.0 10.0 Whole egg liquid 140.0 140.0 140.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0

[1045] The amounts being indicated by weight (in grams).

[1046] The manufacturing process is as follows: [1047] Heat mixture B to melt the chocolate [1048] Mix the powders A in a Hobart planetary mixer equipped with a flat paddle, for 1 minute at speed 1 [1049] Add the melted mixture B to the powders and mix for 2 minutes at speed 1 [1050] Finally, add C and mix for 2 minutes at speed 1. Scrape the bowl and mix again for 2 minutes at speed 2 [1051] Spread the preparation in paper muffin molds (70 g per mold) [1052] Bake in a MIWE Econo type fan oven at 180? C. to 15 minutes (fan speed 2, air inlet closed).

[1053] The analyses performed are as follows:

Viscosity of the Muffin Batters:

[1054] The measurement is taken using an AR2000 rheometer from the company TA Instruments, with the following profile: [1055] Time: 600 s [1056] Speed: 160 rpm [1057] Temperature: 25? C.

[1058] The results are shown in FIG. 19.

[1059] In the muffins, the viscosity of the preparation will have an impact on the rising during baking and thus on the final volume. The pea protein isolates according to the invention have a much lower viscosity than the other pea proteins.

Example 19: Protein Enrichment of Griddle Cake Instant Mix (Intended for Specialized/Slimming or Sports Nutrition)

[1060] The object here is to replace 50% of the milk protein.

[1061] The formulations have the following composition:

TABLE-US-00067 Pea protein isolate No. 2 according NUTRALYS? NUTRALYS? to the S85F S85XF invention % % % Whole wheat flour 14 14 14 WPC 450 from 12.5 6.2 6.2 FONTERRA Protein 6.3 6.3 Wheat flour 7.3 7.3 7.3 Skimmed 2 2 2 milk powder Egg white powder 1.6 1.6 1.6 Powdered fat 1.4 1.4 1.4 CEGEPAL Baking powder 0.8 0.8 0.8 Salt 0.4 0.4 0.4 Water 60 60 60 100 100 100

[1062] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[1063] The nutritional values of these formulations are as follows:

TABLE-US-00068 50% WPC replaced with pea CONTROL protein isolates Per 100 g Powder Griddle cakes Powder Griddle cakes Calories (kCal) 375 211 373 211 Protein (%) 36.6 20.7 36.6 20.7 Fat (%) 7.1 4.0 7.2 4.0 Carbohydrates (%) 41.1 23.2 40.6 23.6 . . . of which sugars 2.5 1.4 2.6 1.4 (%) Dietary fiber (%) 3.7 2.1 3.9 2.2 kCal/protein (%) 39 39 39 39

[1064] The manufacturing process is as follows: [1065] Mix all the powders [1066] Add the water and mix with a whip to obtain a homogeneous preparation [1067] Leave to stand for 2 minutes [1068] Cook in a pancake pan or multi-griddle cake skillet for about 2 minutes, turning the griddle cakes when half cooked

[1069] The analyses performed are as follows;

Impact on the Viscosity of the Preparations

[1070] The measurement is taken using an RVA rheometer, with the following profile:

TABLE-US-00069 Time (s) Spead (rpm) Temperature (? C.) 60 20 25 120 50 25 180 100 25

[1071] The results are shown in FIG. 20.

[1072] The RVA viscosity measurements on the protein-enriched preparations show that those with the pea protein isolate according to the invention are less viscous than those with the other pea proteins.

[1073] This influence on the viscosity has an impact on the rising of the griddle cakes during cooking.

[1074] A rapid sensory analysis performed on the griddle cakes produced gave the following results

TABLE-US-00070 Control: Pea protein isolate NUTRALYS? NUTRALYS? No. 2 according S85F S85XF to the invention Liquid batter More viscous batter Liquid batter close to the control product appears drier More of a griddle Thickness close in the mouth cake style (thicker) to the control Appearance more like But with a pea taste Milder taste and a cr?pe griddle cake more supple texture than a griddle cake (thinner). White crumb More beige crumb

Example 20: Protein-Enriched Gluten-Free Bread

[1075] Traditional bread has a protein content of about 10%.

[1076] However, in gluten-free products, the protein content is very low. Protein supplementation of these products is then sought to re-equilibrate the nutritional values by means of gluten-free proteins such as pea protein.

[1077] The formulations have the following composition:

TABLE-US-00071 MIX B Pea protein of SCHAR various origins g % g % MIX B SCHAR 500.0 49.1% 430.0 42.2% Pea protein 0.0 0.0% 70.0 6.9% Dry yeast 8.0 0.8% 8.0 0.8% Water 500.0 49.1% 500.0 49.1% Canola oil 6.0 0.6% 6.0 0.6% Salt 5.0 0.5% 5.0 0.5% 1019.0 100% 1019.0 100%

[1078] The nutritional values of these formulations are as follows:

TABLE-US-00072 Bread enriched with pea protein of Traditional MIX B various wheat flour per 100 g SCHAR origins bread Calories (kCal) 236 241 267 Protein 2.9 9.7 9.8 Fat 1.5 2.2 1.0 Carbohydrates 52.7 45.5 54.8 . . . of which DP 1, 2 2.9 2.6 1.0 Fiber 2.4 2.1 1.6 . . . insoluble fiber 2.4 2.1 1.6 . . . soluble fiber 0.0 0.1 0.0 kCal/protein (%) 4.8 16.1 14.4

[1079] The analyses performed are as follows:

[1080] Viscosity of the dough is obtained from pea protein of four different origins (including the isolates according to the invention):

TABLE-US-00073 Pea protein Pea protein isolate No. 1 isolate No. 2 MIX B NUTRALYS? NUTRALYS? NUTRALYS? according to according to SCH?R F85F S85F PEA-BF the invention the invention Viscosity of 0 +++ ++ ++ 0 0 the dough Color White/ Brown/ Brown/ Brown/ Brown/ Brown/ nacre orange orange orange orange orange ++ + + Maximum 67 52 51 58 65 65 height (mm) Weight (g) 345 353 362 357 354 352 Percentage 11% 9% 6% 7% 8% 9% water loss during baking Moisture 54.2 55.0 54.8 55.0 54.5 54.7 content of the final product (% H2O)

[1081] The SCH?R mix corresponds here to the control reference for a gluten free bread. The results show that protein enrichment of this mix has an impact on the viscosity of the preparation and on the final volume (maximum height), except for the pas protein isolates obtained according to the invention, which do not affect either the viscosity of the preparation or the final volume.

Example 21: Protein-Enriched Bread

[1082] The formulations have the following composition:

TABLE-US-00074 Pea protein isolate No. 2 according NUTRALYS? to the BF invention Wheat flour 900 900 Pea protein 100 100 Salt 18 18 Dry yeast 7 7 Ascorbic add 0.2 0.2 NUTRILIFE? 0.2 0.2 AM17, enzyme Water (20? C.) 725 725 1750.4 1750.4

[1083] The amounts are indicated by weight (in grams).

[1084] The nutritional values of these formulations are as follows:

TABLE-US-00075 Traditional Bread rich white in pea bread protein Calories (kCal/kJ) 266 252 Proteins 9.6 14.3 Fat 1.0 1.3 Carbohydrates 54.8 45.9 . . . of which DP 1, 2 0.0 0.0 Total fiber 1.6 1.4 . . . insoluble fiber 1.6 1.3 . . . soluble fiber 0.0 0.1 kCal/protein (%) 14 23

[1085] The analyses performed are as follows:

TABLE-US-00076 NUTRALYS Pea protein PEA-BF isolate No. 2 Volume (cm.sup.3) 1505 1745 Bread weight after baking (g) 441.3 435.0 Water loss during baking 11.7% 13.3% Weight of three disks of breadcrumbs/ 20.4 13.0 50 mm diameter (g) Bread density (g/cm.sup.3) 0.293 0.249 Crumb density (g/cm.sup.3) 0.346 0.221

[1086] The volume and density are in favor of the pea protein isolates according to the invention, which allows better rising and thus a more aerated and softer, less dense bread.

[1087] A rapid sensory analysis performed on the breads produced gave the following results.

TABLE-US-00077 NUTRALYS? BF Pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention Pea taste, dry crumb Absence of pea taste; less intense toast taste; extra light crumb; large volume

Example 22: High-Protein Crisps (Protein Content>60%)

[1088] High-protein crisps are small cereals obtained by extrusion, with a protein content of greater than 60%.

[1089] These cereals are used as inclusion in cereal preparations such as cereal bars or clusters.

[1090] These high-protein crisps are occasionally the only solution for the protein enrichment of these cereal products since the incorporation of protein in powder form has an excessive impact on the texture of the finished product.

[1091] The technical difficulty of high-protein crisps lies in achieving protein contents of greater than 60%, or even 70%, while preserving the crunchiness.

[1092] The crunchiness of the extruded products is directly associated with the expansion. In cereals obtained by extrusion cooking, expansion takes place at the die outlet under pressure of water vapor.

[1093] The high-protein crisp formulations containing 75% protein have the following composition:

TABLE-US-00078 Pea protein isolate No. 1 according NUTRALYS? NUTRALYS? to the BF S85F invention Pea protein 88% 88% 88% PREGEFLO? C100: 8% 8% 8% pregelatinized waxy corn starch) Corn starch 4% 4% 4%

[1094] The amounts being indicated as weight percentages.

[1095] The procedure is as follows:

[1096] The crisps or extruded cereals were obtained on a CLEXTRAL Evolum 25 brand co-rotating twin-screw extruder equipped with a shearing screw profile.

[1097] To compare the tests, the parameters are set in a first stage so as to have only the type of protein variable.

[1098] The extrusion is performed as follows.

TABLE-US-00079 Fixed parameters Screw speed (rpm) 300 Chopping speed (rpm) 800 Powder flow rate (kg/h) 6 Water flow rate (kg/h) 1.4 Die Three holes (3 mm diameter), two of which are blocked Temperatures of barrels 50-80-100-130-150-130 1 to 6 (? C.) Knife blade double

[1099] The analyses performed are as follows.

[1100] The method for evaluating the quality of the crisps is based on the sum of the scores obtained regarding the various appearance and texture criteria, according to the frame of reference detailed below.

[1101] A first note on the general appearance of the crisps is obtained by summing: [1102] a note from 1 to 4 regarding the shape of the crisps, with the note 1 for a very irregular shape and 4 for a nicely rounded shape. [1103] A note from 1 to 2 regarding the color, with 1 for an unsatisfactory color (too dark/irregular) and 2 for an acceptable color.

[1104] A second note regarding the evaluation of the texture and of the level of expansion by summing: [1105] A note from 1 to 5 regarding the hardness, with the note 1 for the very hard products/3 for the crunchy products and 5 for the crisp products. [1106] A measurement of the level of radial expansion established by the ratio of the mean diameter of the crisps to the diameter of the die.

[1107] The table below summarizes the results obtained. The highest scores represent the best results.

TABLE-US-00080 Pea protein isolate No. 1 according to the NUTRALYS? NUTRALYS invention BF S85F Texture (/6) 4.7 3.66 2.1 Appearance 4.5 1 1.5

[1108] The above results show that the best products were obtained with the pea protein isolate obtained according to the invention.

[1109] A sparingly functional and sparingly soluble protein such as the pea protein NUTRALYS? BF gives products that are average in terms of texture but unacceptable in terms of appearance. A soluble and functional protein such as NUTRALYS? S85F gives mediocre results in terms of appearance and texture.

Example 23: High-Protein Nutritional Bars for Sportspeople

[1110] The technical challenge in high-protein nutritional bars is that of controlling the texture during the storage period of the product.

[1111] The reason for this is that high-protein nutritional bars have a tendency to harden over time.

[1112] Various hypotheses have been found in the literature to explain this phenomenon, especially the migration of water between the ingredients and protein aggregation.

[1113] The choice of protein(s) is thus crucial for the quality of the finished product.

[1114] Preparation of the nutritional bars according to various recipes:

TABLE-US-00081 Ingredients Ratio Pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention/ Recipes: 50% whey protein concentrate + 50% pea protein NUTRALYS? S85XF 0%/50% 12.5%/37.5% 25%/25% 37.5%/12.5% 50%/0% Syrup Glucose/fructose 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% syrup 7081 NUTRIOSE? 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% Sorbitol syrup 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% Sunflower oil 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Powders Whey protein 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% concentrate 80 NUTRALYS? 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% S85 XF Pea protein isolate 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% No. 2 according to the invention Flavorings, 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% amino acids Defatted 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% coconut powder Topping Dark 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% chocolate powder TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

[1115] The amounts being given as weight percentages.

Analyses:

Measurement of the Hardness of the Nutritional Bars

[1116] Monitoring of the hardness (determined on an INSTRON? penetrometerforce required for the penetration of a knife into 40% of the thickness of the bar at constant speed) is performed over 1 month, with measurements at D.sub.+1, D.sub.+7, D.sub.+14, D.sub.+21, D.sub.+25 on the various recipes presented above.

[1117] The results are as follows:

TABLE-US-00082 Hardness of the bars (Instron measurements) in newtons as a function of the pea protein ratios and of the storage time Ratio Pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention/ NUTRALYS? S85XF D.sub.+1 D.sub.+7 D.sub.+14 D.sub.+21 D.sub.+28 0%/50% 76.6 92.2 99.8 112 120.1 12.5%/37.5% 54.4 64.9 72.4 90.4 95.6 25%/25% 44 51.3 58.5 70 79.7 37.5%/12.5% 31.1 31 54.8 61.8 70.3 50%/0% 32.6 50.9 57.5 66.5 77.1

[1118] Increasing the degree of incorporation of the pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention is inversely proportional to the decrease in hardness of the bars, irrespective of the storage time.

[1119] An optimum is obtained for a ratio of 37.5% pea protein isolate No. 2 according to the invention/12.5% NUTRALYS? 85XF/50% WPC.

Example 24. Mozzarella-Type Vegan Cheeses Containing Pea Protein Isolates

[1120] The vegan cheese recipe containing pea protein isolates No. 2 according to the invention is given in the following table.

[1121] The control is a recipe containing pea protein of NUTRALYS F85F type.

TABLE-US-00083 No. 2 Pea protein isolate No. 2 No. 1 according NUTRALYS to the Recipe F85F invention Rapeseed oil 7.98 7.98 Coconut oil 14.82 14.82 Acetylated potato starch 22.9 22.9 CLEARAM PG 9020 from Roquette Fr?res pea protein or 5 5 pea protein isolate Citric acid 0.3 0.3 Salt 1.7 1.7 Inactivated yeasts 1.1 1.1 Water 41.7 41.9 Cheese flavoring 0.25 0.25 Cassava starch 4 4 OSI Pea masker 9767A 0.25 0.25 Total 100 100

[1122] The amounts being given as weight percentages.

[1123] The process for preparing the recipe is as follows: [1124] add the water to a container equipped with a healing jacket (such as a Stephan Bowlwww.stephan-machinery.com/index.php?id=3) and heat to 50? C., [1125] add all the powder ingredients, except for the citric acid, [1126] mix at 750 rpm for 2 minutes at 50? C., [1127] add the oils and mi for 2 minutes at 750 mm, [1128] add the citric acid and mix for 1 minute at 750 rpm, [1129] heat the mature to 75? C. while mixing regularly by hand so as to prevent it from browning, [1130] stop the entry of steam into the jacket, [1131] cook for 5 minutes, while mixing regularly, [1132] stop the cooking and store at +6? C.

[1133] Analyses of color, texture, shreddability, and stability to freezing/thawing and meting were undertaken.

[1134] While the color and texture of the two recipes an equivalent, the recipe with the pea protein isolate No. 2 has better shreddability behavior and better stability on melting. The taste is moreover acknowledged as being better with recipe No. 2.