Literature DB >> 33154787

Prediction of stevia liking by sucrose liking: Effects of beverage background.

Stephanie Oleson1, Claire Murphy1,2,3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There is significant concern over the health implications of increased consumption of sugars added to foods and beverages. Understanding the increase in sugar intake, as well as consideration of potential substitutes will require research in multiple domains. Research on hedonic ratings of sucrose suggests that individuals can be classified into two distinct liking profiles: sweet likers and sweet non-likers. However, no known studies have investigated liking for the natural, nonnutritive sweetener, stevia. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between liking of stevia and sucrose as a function of beverage background.
METHODS: Forty young adults, 20 high concentration and 20 moderate concentration stevia likers, gave intensity and pleasantness ratings for stevia blend and sucrose taste solutions that varied in concentration and background.
RESULTS: The results revealed a significant relationship between stevia blend liking and sucrose liking. The majority of stevia high concentration likers were high concentration sucrose likers. Pleasantness ratings also significantly varied as a function of background: the discrepancy in pleasantness ratings between stevia blend high concentration likers and moderate concentration likers observed in distilled water was attenuated in a citric beverage background.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of high concentration stevia likers were sucrose likers; however, pleasantness ratings also significantly varied as a function of stimulus background. IMPLICATIONS: Limiting sucrose in the modern diet is an important research area for diabetes and other health issues. The results suggest that perception of pleasantness and sweetness at varying sweetener concentrations is not fully generalizable from one beverage background to another.

Entities:  

Keywords:  liking; stevia; sucrose; sweet taste; taste

Year:  2017        PMID: 33154787      PMCID: PMC7641516          DOI: 10.1007/s12078-017-9225-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chemosens Percept        ISSN: 1936-5802            Impact factor:   1.833


  25 in total

Review 1.  Overview of the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: selected literature.

Authors:  M A Van Duyn; E Pivonka
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2000-12

Review 2.  Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception.

Authors:  L M Bartoshuk
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.160

3.  Preference mapping of frozen and fresh raspberries.

Authors:  R R Villamor; C H Daniels; P P Moore; C F Ross
Journal:  J Food Sci       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 3.167

4.  Mixtures of substances with similar tastes. A test of a psychophysical model of taste mixture interactions.

Authors:  L M Bartoshuk; C T Cleveland
Journal:  Sens Processes       Date:  1977-05

5.  Do polymorphisms in the TAS1R1 gene contribute to broader differences in human taste intensity?

Authors:  Shristi Rawal; John E Hayes; Margaret R Wallace; Linda M Bartoshuk; Valerie B Duffy
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 3.160

6.  PROP (6-n-Propylthiouracil) tasting and sensory responses to caffeine,sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and chocolate.

Authors:  A Ly; A Drewnowski
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.160

7.  Facial expressions and genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil predict hedonic response to sweet.

Authors:  H Looy; H P Weingarten
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1992-07

8.  Oral sensory phenotype identifies level of sugar and fat required for maximal liking.

Authors:  John E Hayes; Valerie B Duffy
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2008-05-02

9.  Individual differences in perceived bitterness predict liking of sweeteners.

Authors:  Jennifer K Kamerud; Jeannine F Delwiche
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2007-07-23       Impact factor: 3.160

10.  Rebaudioside A and Rebaudioside D bitterness do not covary with Acesulfame K bitterness or polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31.

Authors:  Alissa L Allen; John E McGeary; John E Hayes
Journal:  Chemosens Percept       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 1.833

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.