Abstract
This study was aimed to determine and compare the proximate composition of chicken burgers from night market stalls and selected fast-food restaurants. The methods used for determination of proximate composition were AOAC Official Methods 973.48, 960.39, 991.43, 990.19 and 999.11 for protein, fat, fibre, moisture and ash, respectively except total available carbohydrate. The energy content of all samples was calculated based on 4, 4 and 9 kcal/100 g for carbohydrate, protein and fat, respectively. The protein content of burger samples from fast-food restaurant ranged 14.48-18.6%, whereas the samples from night market stalls had protein content ranged 13.26%-19%. Fat contents of burger samples from fast-food restaurant and night market stalls were 18.57-19.11% and 26.33- 28.0%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences (p<0.05) in the percentage of insoluble dietary fibre, but no significant differences were found for soluble and total dietary fibres in the burger samples between night market stalls and the restaurants. Night-stall burger samples had higher fibre content (0.14-0.20%) than the fastfood restaurant samples which ranged 0.11-0.16%. Burger samples from the fast-food restaurant had higher carbohydrate content ranged between 17.77% and 18.55% compared to night stall samples (7.70-8.94%). Also, the energy content of all burger samples ranged 296–360 kcal. There were significant differences for the protein, fat, carbohydrate, energy and ash content of the burger samples between night market stalls and fast-food restaurants but not for moisture and fibre content. The findings indicated that the nutritional composition of burger samples varied among different locations where a variation in preparation method was observed
Highlights
At present, the consumption of ready-to-eat foods from the nearest food court, groceries and restaurant have drastically increased due to the increasing volumes of works and extension of possible business hours
The results demonstrated that insoluble dietary fibre content of CB1 was significantly lower for than CB2 and CB5
Chicken burgers from the selected fast-food restaurants had higher percentages of protein and lower fat content than the burgers purchased from the night market stalls
Summary
The consumption of ready-to-eat foods from the nearest food court, groceries and restaurant have drastically increased due to the increasing volumes of works and extension of possible business hours. A study conducted in Selangor, Malaysia by Asma (2014) showed that 38.0% of total energy from daily energy intake comes from ultra-processed foods products. These are lead people more dependent on ready-to-eat foods, such as frankfurters, burgers, pizzas, meatballs, soups, creams, candies, and cookies (Ali et al, 2014). In Malaysia, due to urbanisation, many Malaysians preferred food that easy to serve and eat like fast-food and ready-to-eat processed foods that are convenient to them especially for those living in urban areas (Asma, 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call