Literature DB >> 25847181

Parents' and children's acceptance of skim chocolate milks sweetened by monk fruit and stevia leaf extracts.

X E Li1, K Lopetcharat2, M A Drake3.   

Abstract

Chocolate milk increases milk consumption of children, but high sugar content raises health concerns. Interest in sugar reduction and parents' preference for natural sweeteners necessitates further research on natural nonnutritive sweeteners. However, it is important to maintain consumer acceptability, especially for children, while reducing sugar in chocolate milk. The objectives of this study were to identify the sweetness intensity perception of stevia leaf (STV) and monk fruit (MK) extracts in skim chocolate milk (SCM), to evaluate STV and MK as the sole or partial sweetener source for SCM for young adults (19 to 35 y) and children (5 to 13 y), and to determine if information on natural nonnutritive sweeteners impacted parents' acceptability of SCM. Power function and 2-alternative forced choice studies were used to determine the iso-sweetness of nonnutritive sweeteners to a sucrose control in SCM (51.4 g/L, SUC control). Young adults (n = 131) evaluated 9 different SCM (SUC control, STV, MK, STV:sucrose blends, or MK:sucrose blends) in a completely randomized 2-d test. Children (n = 167) evaluated SUC control SCM and SCM with 39.7 g/L sucrose and 46 mg/L MK (MK25) or 30 mg/L STV (STV25). Parents evaluated SUC control, MK25, and STV25 in a balanced crossover design with a 40-d wait time between primed or unprimed ballots. Chocolate milks solely sweetened by nonnutritive sweeteners were less acceptable compared with SUC control by young adults. MK25 and STV25 were acceptable by young adults and children. The presentation of chocolate milk label information had different effects on parental acceptance. Traditional parents preferred sucrose sweetened SCM, and label conscious parents preferred SCM with natural nonnutritive sweeteners.
© 2015 Institute of Food Technologists®

Entities:  

Keywords:  chocolate milk; natural nonnutritive sweetener; power function; priming; sugar reduction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25847181     DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.12835

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Food Sci        ISSN: 0022-1147            Impact factor:   3.167


  7 in total

1.  Personal Variation in Preference for Sweetness: Effects of Age and Obesity.

Authors:  Nuala Bobowski; Julie A Mennella
Journal:  Child Obes       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 2.992

2.  Impact of dietary sucralose and sucrose-sweetened water intake on lipid and glucose metabolism in male mice.

Authors:  Xinyi Wu; Le Cui; Haoquan Wang; Jinhong Xu; Zhaozhao Zhong; Xibei Jia; Jiaqi Wang; Huahua Zhang; Yanteng Shi; Yuhang Tang; Qianhui Yang; Qiongdan Liang; Yujing Zhang; Jing Li; Xiaohong Jiang
Journal:  Eur J Nutr       Date:  2022-08-07       Impact factor: 4.865

3.  Psychophysical Tracking Method to Measure Taste Preferences in Children and Adults.

Authors:  Julie A Mennella; Nuala K Bobowski
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-07-16       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Antiproliferative Activity of Triterpene Glycoside Nutrient from Monk Fruit in Colorectal Cancer and Throat Cancer.

Authors:  Can Liu; Longhai Dai; Yueping Liu; Long Rong; Dequan Dou; Yuanxia Sun; Lanqing Ma
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 5.717

5.  Impact of Common Food Labels on Consumer Liking in Vanilla Yogurt.

Authors:  Theresa Li; Robin Dando
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2019-11-17

6.  Changes in temporal sensory profile, liking, satiety, and postconsumption attributes of yogurt with natural sweeteners.

Authors:  Diksha Chadha; Nazimah Hamid; Kevin Kantono; Manon Marsan
Journal:  J Food Sci       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 7.  Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape.

Authors:  Szimonetta Lohner; Ingrid Toews; Joerg J Meerpohl
Journal:  Nutr J       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 3.271

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.