4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Taste Intensity in the Beaver Dam Offspring Study

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 123, 期 6, 页码 1399-1404

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.23894

关键词

Salt taste; sweet taste; sour taste; bitter taste

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01AG021917, R01 AG021917] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: To determine the distribution of the perceived intensity of salt, sweet, sour, and bitter in a large population and to investigate factors associated with perceived taste intensity. Study Design: Cross-sectional population. Methods: Subjects (n = 2,374; mean age, 48.8 years) were participants in the Beaver Dam Offspring Study examined during 2005 to 2008. Perceived taste intensity was measured using paper disks and a general labeled magnitude scale. Multiple linear regression was performed. Results: Mean intensity ratings were: salt = 27.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 18.5), sweet = 0.4 (SD = 15.0), sour = 35.7 (SD = 21.4), and bitter = 49.6 (SD 23.3). Females and those with less than a college degree education rated tastes stronger. With adjustment for age, sex, and education, stronger perceived sour and bitter intensities were related to current smoking (sour: B = 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4 to 5.2; bitter: B = 2.8, 95% CI, 0.3 to 5.4) and lipid-lowering medications (sour: B = 5.1, 95% CI, 2.5 to 7.6; bitter: B = 3.2, 95% CI, 0.6 to 5.8). Alcohol consumption in the past year was related to weaker salt (B = -2.8, 95% CI, -5.3 to -0.3) and sweet intensity ratings (B = -2.3, 95% CI, -4.3 to -0.3), whereas olfactory impairment was associated with higher sweet ratings (B = 4.7, 95% CI, 1.4 to 7.9). Conclusions: Perceived intensities were strongest for bitter and weakest for sweet. Sex and education were associated with each taste, whereas age did not demonstrate a consistent relationship. Associations with other factors differed by tast-ants, with current smoking and alcohol consumption being related to some tastes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据