## 3 Results  
### Nutritional Value  
Table 1 presents the nutritional value results for all protein sources tested. The last column shows the results of whey protein concentrate (WPC80) as the control sample to which the other protein sources are compared. It can be seen from the above data that the potato and rice formulations have the highest protein content, as they both exceeded the upper limit of quantification for this macronutrient. Single cell protein has slightly less protein than other proteins and almost as much as the WPC80. Last in terms of protein content are algae (_Arthrospira platensis_) and edible insects (_Acbeta domesticus_), with insects showing a slightly higher protein content than \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Edible** & **Algae** & **SCP** & **Potato** & **Rice** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **WPC80** \\ **(Control)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \cline{2-7} Protein & 61.90 & 59.94 & 73.20 & \textgreater{}81.30 & \textgreater{}81.30 & 73.50 \\ Fat & 23.10 & 4.88 & 3.40 & \textless{}0.50 & 7.00 & 4.90 \\ Carbohydrates & 6.90 & 14.99 & 17.30 & 9.70 & 5.00 & 12.70 \\ Fiber & 4.80 & 4.19 & 8.20 & 3.40 & 4.30 & 3.60 \\ Ash & 4.42 & 12.60 & 2.36 & 3.13 & 0.82 & 2.48 \\ Dry mass & 96.30 & 92.45 & 96.30 & 94.10 & 94.10 & 93.60 \\ Energy [kcal/k] & 473/1981 & 335/1417 & 377/1592 & 357/1516 & 399/1687 & 382/1614 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Nutritional value of alternative and unconventional protein sources compared to the whey protein concentrate (WPC80—control sample). algae. A similar protein content in algae was reported in the work of [PERSON] et al. [36]. Despite the considerable variation, it should be mentioned that all preparations have a high protein content, \(\geq\)60 g/100 g. All products tested also meet the definition of a high-protein product in the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods because the amount of energy derived from protein is higher than 20% [37]. In terms of fat content per 100 g of product, the potato protein preparation had the lowest value, and the SCP preparation had slightly more fat, followed by slightly more for algae, which equaled the control sample (WPC80) in fat content. The rice protein had a fat content above the standard, and the edible insect preparation had significantly more, 18.2 g more than WPC80. Most likely, the high fat content of the insects is because ground insects not subjected to defatting were used in the study. In the paper by [PERSON] et al., the authors examined the composition of _Acheta domesticus_ and obtained results ranging from 12.9-21.7 g/100 g dry weight, depending on sex and product batches [38]. This indicates a large discrepancy depending on the production batch and the sex distribution of insects in the whole sample. The protein preparation from rice characterized the lowest content of carbohydrates, slightly more carbohydrates were found in edible insects. The preparation from SCP had the highest amount of this macronutrient; it was 4.6 g/100 g more than the control sample. The amount of dietary fiber in most samples was similar in the range of 3.4-4.8 g/100 g of product, and only the SCP formulation showed a higher value (4.6 g/100 g more than WPC80). The dry matter of all samples was in a similar range between 92.45-96.3 g/100 g. An essential element of nutritional value is the energy content of a given formulation. The highest energy content was in the edible insect protein formulation, followed by rice, WPC80 control protein, and SCP, and the lowest energy content was in the potato and algae formulations. The difference between the highest energy content (edible insects) and the lowest (algae) was 564 kJ (138 kcal). It should be noted that the powder from _Acheta domesticus_ was not subjected to a defatting process, so it contains more fat and less protein per 100 g of product.