## 3 Results and Discussion
### Meat Substitute Quality
The texture evolution toward increased firmness may actually be beneficial for consumer acceptance, as it approaches the textural properties of conventional meat products. Figure 6 presents a comparative sensory profile illustrating the preliminary acceptance patterns of meat substitutes between young men and women for two different formulations (Substitute A and Substitute B), evaluated across five sensory attributes on a 5-point hedonic scale. These results should be interpreted as preliminary due to the limited sample size. It clearly reveals what may be pronounced gender differences in the sensory evaluation of meat substitutes, with women demonstrating potentially higher hedonic ratings for Substitute B across all sensory attributes compared to men. Women are reported to have a better predisposition for meat alternatives than men, mainly due to their concerns about animal welfare and the environment [71] which could translate into more favorable sensory evaluations. The particularly high ratings women gave for taste (\(\approx\)4.0) and overall acceptability (\(\approx\)3.8) for Substitute B align with broader research indicating that women, compared to men, have been shown to respond differently to foods [72], particularly in their hedonic responses to novel food products. The most striking gender difference was in the taste evaluation, where women rated Substitute B at approximately 4.0 points while men's ratings remained notably lower at approximately 2.2 points. This substantial gap might be explained by the greater preference for sweet and sour flavors among females, compared to the preference for bitter and salty flavors among males [73]. This suggests that the flavor profile of Substitute B may have aligned more closely with female taste preferences. Additionally, non-vegetarians seem to be reluctant to try meat analogs due to the belief that consuming healthy products might compromise taste [74]; since men typically consume more meat than women, this reluctance could manifest as lower taste ratings. Interestingly, men showed a slight preference for Substitute A in the texture evaluation (\(\approx\)2.6 vs. \(\approx\)2.2 for Substitute B), contrasting with the women's strong preference for Substitute B's texture (\(\approx\)3.8 vs. \(\approx\)3.2). This divergence may relate to different expectations for meat-like textures between genders. Compared to the meat burger, plant-based burgers had an off-flavor; they were perceived as less juicy, dry, and granular under blind conditions [75]; men's higher consumption of traditional meat might make them more sensitive to textural differences that deviate from conventional meat products. Women's higher ratings for color (\(\approx\)3.5 for Substitute B) compared to men (\(\approx\)2.5 for both substitutes) align with research showing that before consumption, shape, color, and appearance have a greater influence on consumer acceptance compared to flavor and texture [74]. The gender difference in the visual evaluation may reflect women's generally higher health consciousness and females' propensity for breakfast regularity. Higher fruit and vegetable intake can be tied to greater health consciousness, often socially encouraged among women [73]. The overall acceptability scores suggest clear gender-based preferences, with women showing apparent discrimination between formulations (\(\approx\)3.8 for Substitute B vs. \(\approx\)3.0 for Substitute A), while men exhibited more uniform and lower ratings (\(\approx\)2.4 and \(\approx\)2.3). In one study, maleness is positively correlated with the consumption of mammal muscle meat; however, females are more accepting of vegetarian and vegan diets than males [76]. This fundamental difference in dietary orientation may influence the hedonic evaluation of meat substitutes. These gender-specific sensory responses could have important implications for meat substitute formulation and marketing.