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, non-nutritive sweetener, stevia. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between liking of stevia and liking of 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. 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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen AL, McGeary JE, Hayes JE (2013) Rebaudioside A and Rebaudioside D bitterness do not covary with acesulfame K bitterness or polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31. Chemosens Percept 6(3):109–117. doi:10.1007/s12078-013-9149-9
Bartoshuk LM (2000) Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception. Chem Senses 25(4):447–460
Bartoshuk LM, Cleveland CT (1977) Mixtures of substances with similar tastes. A test of a psychophysical model of taste mixture interactions. Sens Processes 1(3):177–186
Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Miller IJ (1994) PTC/PROP tasting: anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiol Behav 56(1):1165–1171
Bartoshuk LM, Green BG, Hoffman HJ, Ko CW, Lucchina LA, Snyder DJ, Weiffenbach J (2004) Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS vs magnitude matching. Physiol Behav 82:109–114
Behrens M, Meyerhof W (2009) Mammalian bitter taste perception. Results Probl Cell Differ 47:203–220. doi:10.1007/400_2008_5
Colquhoun TA, Levin LA, Moskowitz HR, Whitaker VM, Clark DG, Folta KM (2012) Framing the perfect strawberry: an exercise in consumer-assisted selection of fruit crops. J Berry Res 2:45–61. doi:10.3233/JBR-2011-027
Drewnowski A (2002) Genetic markers, taste responses, and food preferences. In: Given P, Paredes D (eds) Chemistry of taste: mechanisms, behaviors, and mimics, vol 825. American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp 52–64
Drewnowski A, Schwartz M (1990) Invisible fats: sensory assessment of sugar/fat mixtures. Appetite 14:203–217
Drewnowski A, Henderson SA, Shore AB (1997a) Genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and hedonic responses to bitter and sweet tastes. Chem Senses 22(1):27–37
Drewnowski A, Henderson SA, Shore AB, Barratt-Fornell A (1997b) Nontasters, tasters, and supertasters of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and hedonic response to sweet. Physiol Behav 62:649–655
Duffy VB, Bartoshuk LM, Weingarten HP (1995) PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) supertasters: sex and sweet preferences. Appetite 24:186
Hayes JE, Duffy VB (2008) Oral sensory phenotype identifies level of sugar and fat required for maximal liking. Physiol Behav 95:77–87. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.04.023
Hayes JE, Wallace MR, Knopik VS, Herbstman DM, Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB (2011) Allelic variation in TAS2R bitter receptor genes associates with variation in sensations from and ingestive behaviors toward common bitter beverages in adults. Chem Senses 36:311–319. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjq132
Hellfritch C, Brockhoff A, Stahler F, Meyerhof W, Hofmann T (2012) Human psychometric and taste receptor responses to steviol glycosides. J Agric Food Chem 60(27):6782–6793. doi:10.1021/jf301297n
Jaeger SR, Rossiter KL, Wismer WV, Harker FR (2003) Consumer-driven product development in the kiwifruit industry. Food Qual Pref 14:187–198
Kamerud JK, Delwiche JF (2007) Individual differences in perceived bitterness predict liking of sweetness. Chem Senses 32:803–810. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjm050
Kim UK, Jorgenson E, Coon H, Leppert M, Risch N, Drayna D (2003) Positional cloning of the human quantitative trait locus underlying taste sensitivity to phenylthiocarbamide. Science 299(5610):1221–1225. doi:10.1126/science.1080190
Knaapila A, Hwang L, Lysenko A et al (2012) Genetic analysis of chemosensory traits in human twins. Chem Senses 37:869–881. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjs070
Lawless HT (1979) Evidence for neural inhibition in bittersweet taste mixtures. J Comp Physiol Psychol 93:538–547
Lewis WH (1992) Early uses of Stevia rebaudiana (Asteraceae) leaves as a sweetener in Paraguay. Econ Bot 46:336–337
Looy H, Weingarten HP (1992) Facial expressions and genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil predict hedonic response to sweet. Physiol Behav 52:75–82
Ly A, Drewnowski A (2001) PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) tasting and sensory responses to caffeine, sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and chocolate. Chem Senses 26:41–47
Menella JA, Pepino MY, Reed DR (2005) Genetic and environmental determinants of bitter perception and sweet preferences. Pediatrics 115(2):e216–e222. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1582
Moskowitz HR, Kluter RA, Westerling J, Jacobs HL (1974) Sugar sweetness and pleasantness: evidence for different psychological laws. Science 184:583–585
Prakash I, DuBois GE, Clos JF, Wilkens KL, Fosdick LE (2008) Development of rebiana, a natural, non-caloric sweetener. Food Chem Toxicol 46:S75–S82. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2008.05.004
Rawal S, Hayes JE, Wallace MR, Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB (2013) Do polymorphisms in the TAS1R1 gene contribute to broader differences in human taste intensity? Chem Senses 38(8):719–728. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjt040
Roura E, Aldayyani A, Thavaraj P et al (2015) Variability in human bitter taste sensitivity to chemically diverse compounds can be accounted for by differential TAS2R activation. Chem Senses 40(6):427–435. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjv024
Steyn W, Manning N, Muller M, Human JP (2011) Physical, sensory and consumer analysis of eating quality and appearance of pear genotypes among South African consumers. Acta Hortic 909:579–586. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.909.69
Van Duyn MA, Pivonka E (2000) Overview of the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: selected literature. J Am Diet 100(12):1511–1521
Villamor RR, Daniels CH, Moore PP, Ross CF (2013) Preference mapping of frozen and fresh raspberries. J Food Sci 78(6):S911–S919. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.12125
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by NIH grant # R01AG004085-26 to C.M. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Aaron Jacobson.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This study was funded by NIH grant number R01 AG004085-26.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments of comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oleson, S., Murphy, C. Prediction of Stevia Liking by Sucrose Liking: Effects of Beverage Background. Chem. Percept. 10, 49–59 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-017-9225-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-017-9225-7