Beef, chuck, mock tender steak, boneless, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, choice, cooked, braised
Whole food · Beef Products
Photo: Wikipedia
This is a lean, boneless cut from the beef chuck, known for its fine grain and tender texture when properly braised. Despite its name, the 'mock tender' is not naturally tender but becomes succulent and richly beefy after a slow, moist cooking process. It offers a robust 32g of protein per 100g with a moderate fat content, making it a nutrient-dense choice for hearty meals.
Calorie split: 57% protein · 0% carbs · 43% fat
↓ Full nutrition💚 Why it's loved
People love it for its deep, beefy flavor that intensifies with slow cooking, and its ability to absorb sauces and seasonings beautifully. It's a cost-effective cut that delivers premium taste and texture in classic comfort dishes.
⚠️ Watch-outs & how to enjoy it better
If not cooked properly (i.e., too quickly or at too high a heat), it can be tough and chewy. Those monitoring saturated fat intake should be mindful of the fat content, though trimming helps. To counteract toughness, always use a low-and-slow braising method; to manage fat, trim any visible separable fat before cooking and skim rendered fat from the braising liquid.
Key benefits
- Excellent source of complete protein for muscle maintenance
- Rich in heme iron, which is highly absorbable
- Provides essential B vitamins like B12 and niacin
- Contains zinc, important for immune function
- High in collagen, which breaks down into gelatin during braising
🍽️ Popular dishes
🌍 Where it's eaten
💡 Did you know?
The 'mock tender' gets its name because it looks similar to the more expensive tenderloin (filet mignon) but requires completely different cooking methods to become tender.
Full nutrition (USDA data · scales with serving)
| Water | 56.8 g |
| Energy | 225 kcal |
| Energy | 943 kj |
| Protein | 32.2 g |
| Total lipid (fat) | 10.7 g |
| Ash | 1.6 g |
| Carbohydrate, by difference | 0.00 g |
| Fiber, total dietary | 0.00 g |
| Total Sugars | 0.00 g |
| Calcium, Ca | 15.0 mg |
| Iron, Fe | 3.4 mg |
| Magnesium, Mg | 22.0 mg |
| Phosphorus, P | 230 mg |
| Potassium, K | 303 mg |
| Sodium, Na | 66.0 mg |
| Zinc, Zn | 10.5 mg |
| Copper, Cu | 0.14 mg |
| Manganese, Mn | 0.01 mg |
| Selenium, Se | 37.1 ug |
| Vitamin C, total ascorbic acid | 0.00 mg |
| Thiamin | 0.09 mg |
| Riboflavin | 0.28 mg |
| Niacin | 3.8 mg |
| Pantothenic acid | 0.90 mg |
| Vitamin B-6 | 0.37 mg |
| Folate, total | 8.0 ug |
| Folic acid | 0.00 ug |
| Folate, food | 8.0 ug |
| Folate, DFE | 8.0 ug |
| Choline, total | 122 mg |
| Betaine | 18.5 mg |
| Vitamin B-12 | 4.3 ug |
| Vitamin B-12, added | 0.00 ug |
| Vitamin A, RAE | 7.0 ug |
| Retinol | 7.0 ug |
| Carotene, beta | 0.00 ug |
| Carotene, alpha | 0.00 ug |
| Cryptoxanthin, beta | 0.00 ug |
| Vitamin A, IU | 23.0 iu |
| Lycopene | 0.00 ug |
| Lutein + zeaxanthin | 0.00 ug |
| Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) | 0.11 mg |
| Vitamin E, added | 0.00 mg |
| Vitamin D (D2 + D3), International Units | 6.0 iu |
| Vitamin D (D2 + D3) | 0.10 ug |
| Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) | 0.10 ug |
| Vitamin K (phylloquinone) | 1.6 ug |
| Alcohol, ethyl | 0.00 g |
| Caffeine | 0.00 mg |
| Theobromine | 0.00 mg |
Fat & fatty acid profile (per 100g)
| Fatty acids, total saturated | 3.9 g |
| SFA 4:0 | 0.00 g |
| SFA 6:0 | 0.00 g |
| SFA 8:0 | 0.00 g |
| SFA 10:0 | 0.00 g |
| SFA 12:0 | 0.00 g |
| SFA 14:0 | 0.23 g |
| SFA 16:0 | 2.1 g |
| SFA 17:0 | 0.12 g |
| SFA 18:0 | 1.4 g |
| SFA 20:0 | 0.00 g |
| SFA 24:0 | 0.02 g |
| Fatty acids, total monounsaturated | 4.5 g |
| MUFA 14:1 | 0.05 g |
| MUFA 16:1 | 0.28 g |
| MUFA 16:1 c | 0.28 g |
| MUFA 17:1 | 0.08 g |
| MUFA 18:1 | 4.1 g |
| MUFA 18:1 c | 3.6 g |
| MUFA 18:1-11 t (18:1t n-7) | 0.21 g |
| MUFA 20:1 | 0.01 g |
| MUFA 22:1 | 0.00 g |
| Fatty acids, total polyunsaturated | 0.61 g |
| PUFA 18:2 | 0.50 g |
| PUFA 18:2 n-6 c,c | 0.46 g |
| PUFA 18:2 CLAs | 0.04 g |
| PUFA 18:3 | 0.02 g |
| PUFA 18:3 n-3 c,c,c (ALA) | 0.02 g |
| PUFA 18:4 | 0.00 g |
| PUFA 20:2 n-6 c,c | 0.00 g |
| PUFA 20:4 | 0.09 g |
| PUFA 20:5 n-3 (EPA) | 0.01 g |
| PUFA 22:5 n-3 (DPA) | 0.00 g |
| PUFA 22:6 n-3 (DHA) | 0.00 g |
| Fatty acids, total trans | 0.49 g |
| Fatty acids, total trans-monoenoic | 0.49 g |
| TFA 18:1 t | 0.49 g |
| Cholesterol | 112 mg |
Amino acid profile (per 100g)
| Tryptophan | 0.36 g |
| Threonine | 1.4 g |
| Isoleucine | 1.4 g |
| Leucine | 2.6 g |
| Lysine | 2.8 g |
| Methionine | 0.92 g |
| Cystine | 0.34 g |
| Phenylalanine | 1.2 g |
| Tyrosine | 1.1 g |
| Valine | 1.5 g |
| Arginine | 2.1 g |
| Histidine | 1.0 g |
| Alanine | 1.8 g |
| Aspartic acid | 2.9 g |
| Glutamic acid | 5.1 g |
| Glycine | 1.5 g |
| Proline | 1.3 g |
| Serine | 1.2 g |
| Hydroxyproline | 0.22 g |
FAQ
Why is it called 'mock tender' if it's not tender?
It's named for its visual resemblance to a tenderloin steak. The name is a warning, not a promise—it indicates the cut needs specific cooking (like braising) to become tender, unlike a true tenderloin which is tender with quick cooking.
What's the best way to cook this cut to avoid toughness?
Braising is ideal. Sear the steak, then simmer it slowly in liquid (like broth or wine) at a low temperature (around 300-325°F or 150-160°C) for 2-3 hours. This breaks down the connective tissue into gelatin, resulting in a fork-tender texture.
Is this a healthy cut of beef?
Yes, it's a nutritious choice. It's very high in protein, low in carbohydrates, and provides important minerals like iron and zinc. The fat content is moderate and can be further reduced by trimming before cooking.
Nutrient density (calculated · NRF9.3)
Nutrient Rich Foods index: beneficial nutrients (protein, fiber, vitamins, minerals) minus saturated fat, added sugar & sodium, per 100 kcal.
NRF9.3 index — Fulgoni, Keast & Drewnowski, 2009. Computed from USDA nutrients.
Weight-loss friendliness (composite index)
Energy density 2.25 kcal/g · 57% calories from protein · 0.0 g fiber · 0.0 g sugar per 100 g.
Composite of energy density (Rolls et al., 1999), protein & fiber satiety, minus sugar. A calculated heuristic — ranks satiety-per-calorie, not a clinical measure.
Dietary load (calculated from USDA values)
Potential renal acid load. Positive = acid-forming, negative = alkaline-forming.
Sodium-to-potassium ratio: 0.22 (lower is better — aim for ≤ 1)
Sodium:potassium per WHO potassium guidance. Computed from USDA nutrients.