{"id":17531,"date":"2019-12-23T17:43:02","date_gmt":"2019-12-23T22:43:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/caloriecontrol.org\/?p=17531"},"modified":"2020-11-25T00:03:15","modified_gmt":"2020-11-25T05:03:15","slug":"sweet-taste-as-a-predictor-of-dietary-intake-a-systematic-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/caloriecontrol.org\/sweet-taste-as-a-predictor-of-dietary-intake-a-systematic-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Sweet Taste as a Predictor of Dietary Intake: A Systematic Review"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

ARTICLE<\/strong>: Brain activity and connectivity changes in response to nutritive natural sugars, non-nutritive natural sugar replacements and artificial sweeteners<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AUTHORS:<\/strong>   Sze-Yen Tan and Robin M. Tucker <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SOURCE<\/strong>: Nutrients<\/a><\/em> 2019, 11(1): 94. Published 2019 Jan 5 doi:10.3390\/nu11010094  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SUMMARY BY<\/strong>:\u00a0 Robyn Flipse, MS, MA, RDN<\/p>\n\n\n\n

December 23, 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is abundant evidence that food selection and dietary intake have a major impact on nutritional status and health. It is also widely recognized that flavor has a primary influence over food choice, and that taste is an essential component of flavor. What is not well understood is which taste mechanisms and perceptions are most predictive of dietary intake. If this were known, it would allow the development of a tool to assess taste preferences and identify those who could be at increased risk of chronic disease due to their food intake behavior. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

OBJECTIVE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since sugar intake has been proposed as a possible cause of the rising prevalence of global obesity, several studies have investigated whether sweet taste<\/a> triggers food-seeking behaviors and increased energy intake, but a systematic review summarizing the findings has not been done. The purpose of this review was to determine if the available psychophysical tests for sweet taste were associated with dietary intake and, if possible, to determine which test is the most closely associated with dietary intake.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

BACKGROUND<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taste testing can be measured using stimulus detection, intensity thresholds, and hedonic evaluation.  Stimulus detection involves determining the absolute minimum concentration of a stimulus that can be detected or recognized among several that have the same stimulus in different concentrations. It is also described as  the ability to detect the correct stimulus from several samples in which only one contains the stimulus of interest. Intensity measurements involve rating the intensity of a sample that contains the stimulus and answering a hedonic question about how much the stimulus is liked when comparing two or more at different concentrations. Each of these tests is independent of the others and provides separate but complementary information about how the stimulus is detected and perceived. These tests can help determine specific taste sensitivities in individuals, but do not reflect the complex sensory experiences provided by foods and beverages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

STUDY SELECTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A systematic literature search was conducted of studies that collected at least one psychophysical measure of sweet taste and reported some sort of dietary intake measure. Studies were included that recruited healthy individuals with no restriction on adiposity, but excluded populations that had diabetes, alcoholism, or eating disorders; known changes in chemosensory function, such as gastric bypass patients; were pregnant; or were smokers. For this review, 3206 studies were identified and 17 included. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The selected studies were placed into three categories based\non the psychophysical methods utilized: (1) sensitivity measurements consisting\nof detection and recognition thresholds (n=6), (2) intensity measures (n=8),\nand (3) hedonic evaluations with liking or preference questions (n=13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The six studies that examined relationships between taste sensitivity and dietary intake varied in terms of the stimuli used (glucose vs sucrose vs non-nutritive sweeteners), the ranges of concentrations tested, and the dietary assessment employed. Only two observed significant associations between sweet taste thresholds and dietary intake, and neither of these studies used non-nutritive sweeteners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The eight studies that examined the relationship between measures of sweet taste intensity and dietary intake also varied in stimuli used and concentrations tested. Only two observed significant relationships and they had contradicting results. One found negative<\/em> associations between intensity ratings for glucose stimulus and sweet food intake, total energy, and carbohydrates, including starch, sugar, and fructose. The other found that intensity ratings for Rebaudioside A and sucralose, two non-nutritive sweeteners, were positively <\/em>associated with mean total energy intake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of the 13 papers examined for relationships between hedonic\nevaluations and dietary intake, all but one used sucrose as a stimuli. Studies\nutilizing  sucrose did so at different\nconcentrations. Five of these studies also classified participants as sweet\n\u201clikers\u201d or \u201cdislikers\u201d since this phenotype has been associated with different\nhedonic responses to sweetness and could influence findings. Among those five\npapers, three observed relationships between sweet \u201cliker\u201d status and greater\nenergy intake from sugar-sweetened beverages and refined and total sugars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the remaining eight studies that did not classify\nsweet likers or dislikers, associations between hedonic responses and dietary\nintake were observed in five, although each reported different methods to\nmeasure dietary intake. Both positive and negative associations were found\nbetween preferred sweetness concentrations and total energy intake,\ncarbohydrate intake, percent sweet calories consumed, refined and total sugars,\nand frequency of carbohydrate-rich food selections in these studies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This review lends supports to the view that measuring\nsensitivity, intensity, and hedonic responses provides distinct but\ncomplementary information about the taste sensations experienced by an\nindividual. It found hedonic ratings had the greatest ability to correlate with\ndietary intake, especially when sweet \u201clikers\u201d were analyzed separately, and\nthat no one method of dietary assessment was superior in identifying taste-diet\nrelationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors propose the discrepancies reported in these papers\nwere likely due to the differences in the taste stimuli and concentrations that\nwere used. They were further confounded by the fact different nutritive sugars\nhave different potencies at the same concentration and the human sweet receptor\nresponds to many compounds besides mono- and disaccharides, including amino\nacids, proteins, and non-nutritive sweeteners. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only a small proportion of the studies reviewed reported significant associations between taste sensitivity, intensity, and hedonics with dietary intake. Of those that reported significant associations, sensitivity and intensity measurements were negatively associated with intake, while liking and preferred concentration measurements (hedonics) were positively associated with intake. Further research is needed before a standardized method of taste sensitivity and dietary intake can be considered. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

POINTS TO CONSIDER<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n