Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:36:41.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences for salt, sugar and fat in selected foods as determined by 6-n-propylthiouracil taster status in young adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2017

C. Gouillaud ,
T. Renault ,
E. Flipon ,
A. Dixon  and
S. Thondre
C. Gouillaud
Affiliation:
Functional Food Centre, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP
T. Renault
Affiliation:
Functional Food Centre, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP
E. Flipon
Affiliation:
Functional Food Centre, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP
A. Dixon
Affiliation:
Functional Food Centre, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP
S. Thondre
Affiliation:
Functional Food Centre, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstract
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 76 , Issue OCE4: Summer Meeting, 10–12 July 2017, Improving Nutrition in Metropolitan Areas , 2017 , E226
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2017 

Genetic differences in the ability to taste bitter compounds such as 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP), classify human beings as supertasters, medium tasters and non-tasters( Reference Hayes and Keast 1 ). Supertasters may tend to avoid bitter tasting vegetables whilst non-tasters have less ability to discriminate fat content in foods( Reference Tepper, Banni and Melis 2 ). However, food choices of medium tasters are not often discussed. The aim of this study was to investigate PROP taster status in relation to preferences for salt, sugar and fat in selected, commonly consumed foods.

Fifty seven healthy volunteers (14 M; 43 F) participated in the study. PROP taster status was determined by rating the taste intensity of five PROP solutions (concentrations – 3·2 × 10–5, 10·0 × 10–4, 3·2 × 10–4, 10·0 × 10–3 and 3·2 × 10–3 mol/l) and five NaCl solutions (concentrations – 1, 0·5, 0·1, 0·05 and 0·01 mol/l) on a 9-point category scale( Reference Yackinous and Guinard 3 ). The participants also sampled butter (salted and unsalted), yogurt (full fat and fat free), tea (with and without sugar) and orange squash (with and without added sugar).

The baseline characteristics of the volunteers (supertasters n = 27; medium tasters n = 30 and non-tasters n = 0) were not significantly different. Figure 1 shows that the medium tasters preferred salted butter more than the unsalted butter (P = 0·005), full fat yogurt more than fat-free yogurt (P = 0·009) and tea with added sugar more than tea without sugar (P = 0·005).

Fig. 1. Hedonic ratings (Mean and SEM) from 1 (like extremely) to 9 (dislike extremely) for eight food stimuli with and without salt, fat and added sugar between medium tasters and supertasters. (* P < 0·05; Significant differences determined between groups by Independent T- test/Mann Whitney U- test and within groups by Paired T- test/Wilcoxon text)

The hedonic ratings for the foods tested were significantly different between supertasters and medium tasters, for unsalted butter alone (P = 0·04; Fig 1). This contradicts previous findings about supertasters' liking for salt( Reference Hayes and Keast 1 ). To conclude, preferences for salt, sugar and fat were more evident in medium tasters than supertasters in this study, which failed to identify non-tasters. Such differences may potentially affect food choices, and therefore have an influence on an individual's nutritional intake and health status.

References

1. Hayes, JE & Keast, RSJ (2011) Physiol Behav 104, 1072–1074.Google Scholar
2. Tepper, B, Banni, S, Melis, M et al. (2014) Nutrients 6, 3363–3381.Google Scholar
3. Yackinous, CA & Guinard, J (2002) Appetite 38, 201–209.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Hedonic ratings (Mean and SEM) from 1 (like extremely) to 9 (dislike extremely) for eight food stimuli with and without salt, fat and added sugar between medium tasters and supertasters. (* P < 0·05; Significant differences determined between groups by Independent T- test/Mann Whitney U- test and within groups by Paired T- test/Wilcoxon text)