» Articles » PMID: 30634558

Quantifying Sweet Taste Liker Phenotypes: Time for Some Consistency in the Classification Criteria

Overview
Journal Nutrients
Date 2019 Jan 13
PMID 30634558
Citations 32
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Taste hedonics is a well-documented driver of food consumption. The role of sweetness in directing ingestive behavior is largely rooted in biology. One can then intuit that individual differences in sweet-liking may constitute an indicator of variations in the susceptibility to diet-related health outcomes. Despite half a century of research on sweet-liking, the best method to identify the distinct responses to sweet taste is still debated. To help resolve this issue, liking and intensity ratings for eight sucrose solutions ranging from 0 to 1 M were collected from 148 young adults (29% men). Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) revealed three response patterns: a sweet-liker (SL) phenotype characterized by a rise in liking as concentration increased, an inverted U-shaped phenotype with maximum liking at 0.25 M, and a sweet-disliker (SD) phenotype characterized by a decline in liking as a function of concentration. Based on sensitivity and specificity analyses, present data suggest the clearest discrimination between phenotypes is seen with 1.0 M sucrose, where a liking rating between -15 and +15 on a -50/+50 scale reliably distinguished individuals with an inverted U-shaped response from the SLs and the SDs. If the efficacy of this approach is confirmed in other populations, the discrimination criteria identified here can serve as the basis for a standard method for classifying sweet taste liker phenotypes in adults.

Citing Articles

Patterns of sensory and hedonic responses for salty and umami tastes and their impact on food familiarity, consumption, and nutritional status: A gender-based analysis from a large population sample.

Cattaneo C, Spinelli S, Dinnella C, Proserpio C, Monteleone E, Pagliarini E Curr Res Food Sci. 2025; 10:100970.

PMID: 39876976 PMC: 11773254. DOI: 10.1016/j.crfs.2025.100970.


Liking for Sweet Taste, Sweet Food Intakes, and Sugar Intakes.

Appleton K Nutrients. 2024; 16(21).

PMID: 39519505 PMC: 11547215. DOI: 10.3390/nu16213672.


Understanding the determinants of sweet taste liking in the African and East Asian ancestry groups in the U.S.-A study protocol.

Cheung M, Hubert P, Reed D, Pouget E, Jiang X, Hwang L PLoS One. 2024; 19(4):e0300071.

PMID: 38683826 PMC: 11057733. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300071.


Distinct Sensory Hedonic Functions for Sourness in Adults.

Spinelli S, Hopfer H, Moulinier V, Prescott J, Monteleone E, Hayes J Food Qual Prefer. 2024; 116.

PMID: 38617134 PMC: 11014420. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105152.


Comparing body composition between the sweet-liking phenotypes: experimental data, systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Armitage R, Iatridi V, Sladekova M, Yeomans M Int J Obes (Lond). 2024; 48(6):764-777.

PMID: 38467727 PMC: 11129949. DOI: 10.1038/s41366-024-01494-7.


References
1.
Easterby-Smith V, Besford J, Heath M . The effect of age on the recognition thresholds of three sweeteners: sucrose, saccharin and aspartame. Gerodontology. 1994; 11(1):39-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.1994.tb00101.x. View

2.
Kampov-Polevoy A, Alterman A, Khalitov E, Garbutt J . Sweet preference predicts mood altering effect of and impaired control over eating sweet foods. Eat Behav. 2006; 7(3):181-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2005.09.005. View

3.
Kennedy O, Law C, Methven L, Mottram D, Gosney M . Investigating age-related changes in taste and affects on sensory perceptions of oral nutritional supplements. Age Ageing. 2010; 39(6):733-8. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afq104. View

4.
Kampov-Polevoy A, Garbutt J, Davis C, Janowsky D . Preference for higher sugar concentrations and Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire scores in alcoholic and nonalcoholic men. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998; 22(3):610-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1998.tb04300.x. View

5.
LILEY A . The foetus as a personality. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1972; 6(2):99-105. DOI: 10.3109/00048677209159688. View