4.4 Article

Taste-nutrient relationships in commonly consumed foods

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 108, Issue 1, Pages 140-147

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114511005277

Keywords

Taste intensity; Nutrient content; Processed foods; Unprocessed foods

Funding

  1. Netherlands Nutrition Center, The Hague, the Netherlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Taste is expected to represent a food's nutrient content. The objective was to investigate whether taste acts as nutrient-sensor, within the context of the current diet, which is high in processed foods. Intensities of the five basic tastes of fifty commonly consumed foods were rated by nineteen subjects (aged 21.0 (SD 1.7) years, BMI 21.5 (SD 2.0) kg/m(2)). Linear regression was used to test associations between taste and nutrient contents. Food groups based on taste were identified using cluster analysis; nutrient content was compared between food groups, using ANOVA. Sweetness was associated with mono- and disaccharides (R-2 0.45, P < 0.01). Saltiness and savouriness were correlated, with r 0.92 (P<001) and both were associated with Na (both: R-2 0.33, P < 0.01) and protein (R-2 0.27, P < 0.01 and R-2 0-33, P < 0.01, respectively). Cluster analysis indicated four food groups: neutral, salty and savoury, sweet-sour and sweet foods. Mono- and disaccharide content was highest in sweet foods (P<0.01). In salty and savoury foods, protein content (P=0.01 with sweet-sour foods, not significant with neutral or sweet foods) and Na content (P<0.05) were the highest. Associations were more pronounced in raw and moderately processed foods, than in highly processed foods. The findings suggest that sweetness, saltiness and savouriness signal nutrient content, particularly for simple sugars, protein and Na. In highly processed foods, however, the ability to sense nutrient content based on taste seems limited.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available