Effects of Sugar and Fat Consumption on Sweet and Fat Taste

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Effects of sugar and fat consumption on sweet and fat

taste

Russell SJ Keast

Excessive consumption of fat and sugar is associated with physiology may therefore inﬂuence food choice or

development of diet related diseases. While there are multiple metabolism [5].

factors involved with overconsumption of sweet and fatty

foods, the taste system is responsible for identifying sugars and Psychophysical measures of taste function include detec-

fats in foods, and in this way inform consumption of potential tion threshold (DT), the lowest concentration of a stimu-

foods. Published research linking sweet taste and sugar lus that is perceivable, recognition threshold (RT) the

consumption is limited and conﬂicting with one recent dietary concentration at which the quality of the stimuli can be

intervention supporting a link between sweet taste and sugar correctly identiﬁed, and the suprathreshold intensity

consumption. Fat taste is an emerging area of interest, and range which increases with increasing stimuli concentra-

recent research illustrates a direct link with high-fat diet tion to a terminal threshold [7]. These three measures are

increasing fat taste thresholds while low-fat diets decrease fat all reﬂective of tastes perceptual domain, but studies have

taste thresholds. illustrated that the measures are not correlated with each

other [8,9] meaning that consumption of sugar or fat may

Address associate with one measure of taste function, such as DT,

Deakin University, Centre for Advanced Sensory Science (CASS), VIC

but not correlate with RT or perceived intensity.

3125, Australia

Corresponding author: Keast, Russell SJ ([email protected])

Sweet taste

Sweet taste is mediated by taste cells expressing the

heterodimer of T1R2 + T1R3 with variation in gene

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2016, 9:55–60

expression underpinning inter-individual variation in

This review comes from a themed issue on Diet, behavior and brain

function sweet taste perception, which may in-turn inﬂuence sugar

consumption [10–12,13 ]. In support of this, evidence

Edited by Dana M Small and Susanne E la Fleur

from a genotyping study involving n = 1137 subjects

showed genetic variation in the TAS1R2 gene was associ-

ated with signiﬁcant difference in total free sugar intake

in overweight and obese individuals, but not healthy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.12.003 weight population [14 ]. Unfortunately the study did

assess if the measured taste gene variance or the con-

sumption of free sugars was associated with perceptual

measures of sweet taste.

One small well-controlled dietary intervention has been

Introduction undertaken with 13 subjects completing a three-month

Diets high in fats, reﬁned sugars or both increase suscep- low-sugar diet and a 16 participant control group remain-

tibility to chronic disease including obesity [1–3]. In this ing on their normal diet [15 ]. There were no signiﬁcant

review conﬂicting evidence is presented with one study changes in sweet taste thresholds during the intervention

identifying an association between sweet taste and sugar and no changes in preference for sweet foods in either

consumption, and emerging evidence indicating a rela- group or between groups. Sweet taste intensity measures

tionship between dietary fat and fat taste thresholds. using general labelled magnitude scale (gLMS) were also

reported and while there was no difference in intensity

The sense of taste ratings during the ﬁrst month, the low-sugar group rated

Taste receptors in the oral cavity give rise to perceptions sweet foods as more intense in months two and three. A

such as sweet and bitter, which enable organisms to one-month post-intervention follow-up showed the low-

identify nutrients and avoid toxins [4]. Homologous sugar intervention group had returned to their normal diet

post-oral taste receptors lining the gastrointestinal tract and sweet taste intensity returned to baseline. This is

(GIT) also serve physiological functions, such as orches- direct evidence that a low-sugar diet causes an increase in

trating reﬂexive responses including gastric emptying sweet taste intensity. In contrast to this, one cross-sec-

and hormone secretion to optimise nutrient metabolism tional study (n = 85 adults) using gLMS intensity ratings

[5,6 ]. Variations in oral or post-oral taste receptor failed to ﬁnd an association between perceived sweetness,

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2016, 9:55–60

56 Diet, behavior and brain function

variety of food in diet, food beliefs, or dietary intake The studies mentioned prior are not intended as a com-

although this study used only one measure of sweet taste prehensive review but do nevertheless reﬂect the dis-

[16]. crepancies between studies, thereby ensuring no absolute

conclusion can be made on whether sweet taste function

A meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and co- and sugar intake are associated.

hort studies reported reduced intake of dietary sugars is

associated with a decrease in body weight, and increased Hedonics of sweet taste rather than the intensity or

sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight threshold of sweetness may inﬂuence intake of sweet

increase [17]. This suggests lean and obese will have foods, although as with intensity, much of the data is

different intake of sugar and comparable differences in conﬂicting. A large 4-survey study by Pangborn and

taste function would provide circumstantial evidence of a Simone collected liking and preference information from

link between consumption and taste, although the link 12 505 participants, all of whom provided anthropometric

between sugar intake and obesity remains controversial information [12]. In-home assessment of canned pears

[18]. Studies have shown that there is a wide range of taste (n = 708 adults) and apricots (n = 370 adults) with 30, 40,

responses to sweet stimuli amongst people with obesity 50, and 70% sucrose syrup was performed using 9-point

and lean persons with little consistency in results. For hedonic scale; there was no association between hedonic

example, there was no difference in ability between lean rating for sweetened apricots and pears with body weight.

participants (n = 13) or participants with obesity (n = 39) Pangborn and Simone also used a paired preference

to identify a 0.175% sucrose solution from water using a method during the 1956 California State Fair to evaluate

two sample forced choice procedure over 175 trials ice cream (n = 6093) with varying levels of sweetness (11,

[19,20]. Similarly, a recent study assessing sweet taste 13, 15, 17 and 19%, w/v, sucrose) and peaches (n = 5334)

threshold using 3-alternate forced choice method in in- with varying levels of sweetness (45, 55 and 65% sucrose

dividuals with obesity (n = 52) and lean participants syrup) and reported no signiﬁcant difference in prefer-

(n = 56) revealed no signiﬁcant difference between the ence between underweight, healthy weight or overweight

populations. In contrast, ascending concentration forced- participants [12]. In contrast, Bartoshuk and colleagues

choice method to determine sucrose DTs in women illustrate the interaction between BMI, sweet intensity

(n = 72) found those with higher body mass index and sweetness liking where they plot remembered liking

(BMI) and body fat had signiﬁcantly higher thresholds of sugar against actual liking of a candy and group subjects

[21]. Similar results were reported for sucrose DT in a according to BMI. The results show that correlations

study containing individuals with obesity (n = 51) and coefﬁcient increased with each BMI category: under-

lean participants (n = 52), with obese individuals having weight (r = 0.0), normal (r = 0.1), overweight (r = 0.13)

signiﬁcantly higher threshold [22 ]. and obese (r = 0.25), meaning for the same perceived

sweetness, liking increases as BMI increases [25 ]. Other

It is possible that sweetness detection or RTs have little well controlled studies have compared sweet taste DT

to do with intake, and that suprathreshold intensity [19,26,27] and suprathreshold intensities [27–29] with

measures are more appropriate when assessing taste sweetness preference between different BMI groups

associations with diet [7,9,23]. Measures in the sweet- and failed to ﬁnd any signiﬁcant associations.

ness suprathreshold range using magnitude estimation

method also failed to ﬁnd any differences in intensity While data are limited and conﬂicting, it is important to

between lean (n = 13), moderately obese (n = 14) and note that discrepancies between studies may be attribut-

extremely obese (n = 39) [20,24 ]. However, as Bar- ed to type of methodology, or using only one measure of

toshuk et al. later noted, comparison between these taste function [25 ]. It is also probable that the association

groups may be erroneous as the magnitude estimation between sweet taste and sugar intake is minimal due to

method provided standardisation of the scale across the multiple other factors that inﬂuence diet, one of

people rather than allowing free use of labelled scales which will be binary interactions of sugars with other

[25 ]. Using sweetness intensity of candy rated on the components of food, such as fat. A small study measured

gLMS which is appropriate for cross-group evaluation, liking for fatty-sweet mixtures on a 9-point hedonic scale

participants (n = 3740) with higher BMIs found the in healthy weight individuals (n = 15), individuals who are

candy less sweet (sr = À0.04) [25 ]. In the interpretation formerly obese (n = 8) and individuals with obesity

of the data it should be noted that the semi partial (n = 12). Three dimensional plots were created using

correlation was small and there was no mention of Response Surface method which illustrated differences

controlling for odour or other sensory attributes present between the groupings, with obese disliking sweetness

in the candy that may have inﬂuenced the result. Even without fat compared to healthy weight, while both

with large numbers of participants and appropriate psy- groups equally liked the sweetened high-fat mixture

chophysical scaling used, the magnitude of difference in [30]. Similar methodology using sugar–fat mixtures was

sweet taste intensity between lean participants and employed by Hayes and Duffy, and while not assessing

those with obesity was minor. BMI found at high sugar/high fat levels participants with

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2016, 9:55–60 www.sciencedirect.com

Effects of sugar and fat on sweet and fat taste Keast 57

Figure 1

KEY 1 Strong signal Weak signal

L OBESE INDIVIDUAL

LEAN INDIVIDUA Taste bud in oral cavity

Neurotransmitters (noradrenaline,seratonin amino acids,acetylcholine)

Ghrelin 3 Stomach Ghrelin sensitivity sensitivity

Leptin Leptin

Intestine

Satiety hormones released Satiety hormones released

GLP-1 GLP-1 sensitivity CCK CCK sensitivity PYY PYY

4 5

Satiety compared to Satiety

Energy intake compared to Energy intake

LEAN OBESE

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Fat taste sensitivity in the oral cavity and gastrointestinal tract and proposed differences between lean and obese individuals. Fats in food are

broken down into FFAs by lipase enzymes in the mouth (1), and interact with putative receptors within taste cells. Lean individuals may have an

increased quantity of these receptors, compared to obese individuals. The presence of fatty acids in the mouth elicits the release of intracellular

Ca and neurotransmitter activation, eliciting a taste perception (2). The brain centre talks with GIT via vagus nerve (3). In normal weight

individuals (4), fat ingestion triggers the release of satiety hormones including grehlin, leptin, CCK, PYY, GLP-1, while comparatively, obese

individuals (5) have decreased expression of fatty acid specific receptors, impairing fat sensing ability, thereby increasing energy

intake.Reproduced by permission from [46].

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2016, 9:55–60

58 Diet, behavior and brain function

low fungiform papillae density (n = 41, 15 female) expe- determination without standardising diet and collecting

rienced less intensity but retained liking for the mixture, recent dietary history may limit validity of studies inves-

while those participants with high fungiform papillae tigating the relationship between diet and taste. This is

(n = 38, 21 female), experienced increased intensity the likely explanation for the conﬂicting cross-sectional

and reduced liking for the sweet–fat mixture [31,32]. data previously discussed surrounding fat taste, diet and

The role of fat (and other food components) in intensity BMI.

and liking of sweetness and consumption of sugar may be

important factor in food consumption. The association between fat taste, diet and obesity are

probably a result of a coordinated alimentary canal re-

Fat taste sponse to dietary fat [45,46] (Figure 1). Indeed, a link

Fat taste is an emerging area of interest particularly in between fat taste and GIT responses to fatty acid has

chemosensory and nutrition research [33,34], and there been established with individuals with obesity having

has been direct evidence of a relationship between fat impaired responses to fatty acid in the oral cavity and the

consumption and fat taste. The impetus for the research is GIT [5,44 ,47,48] compared to healthy weight subjects.

the association between excessive intake of dietary fats Satiety mechanisms may be impaired in the individuals

and the obese state [2,35,36 ,37]. with obesity with subjects voluntarily consuming twice as

much energy from fat products as non-obese [5,49].

The relationship between fat taste thresholds, dietary fat Moreover, illustrating the role fat taste sensitivity may

intake, and BMI has recently been investigated by our have in overconsumption of fatty foods, participants who

group and others [5,36 ,38 ,39,40 ,41]. Some studies were classiﬁed as orally hyposensitive to C18:1 found fat

have found that those who were more sensitive (lower the least satiating macronutrient, while those who were

taste thresholds) to the fatty acid C18:1 had lower energy classiﬁed as hypersensitive to C18:1 found fat the most

intakes and consumed less total dietary fats, and were also satiating [36 ]. This result was speciﬁc for the high fat

better at detecting the fat content of food (custard) meal; this was not observed following a high carbohy-

[5,36 ,39,40 ,41]. In contrast, some studies show no drate, high protein or balanced meal [36 ].

association between fat taste thresholds and BMI

[36 ,40 ] and one study investigating fatty acid intensity The link between fat taste threshold and ability to

(not threshold) found no relationship [42]. The conﬂicting identify fat in foods and subsequent preference or liking

results in the literature may be due to methodological for fatty foods has also been investigated with conﬂicting

differences including the vehicle solution (water or milk) results [38 ,40 ,50–52]. Two studies have shown links

or type of fatty acid used [34,43]. Another likely explana- with diet and preference for fatty foods, with lower fat

tion is the cross-sectional design of the above research diets or lower sensory exposure to fats being associated

using dietary assessment methods prone to error, whereas with increased preference for lower fat foods [38 ,53].

weekly weighed food records may provide greater level of Whereas other cross-sectional studies failed to ﬁnd asso-

accuracy of intake. ciations between habitual diet and preference for fatty

foods [39,51]. Low and high fat dietary interventions have

Direct evidence of the link between diet and fat taste has modiﬁed fat taste thresholds within four weeks as dis-

been shown in two intervention studies. The ﬁrst study cussed previously, but these same studies that measured

was a 4-week randomised cross-over design high-fat/low- fatty food preference before and after the dietary inter-

fat dietary intervention that showed fat taste thresholds vention reported no signiﬁcant or consistent changes in

can be modiﬁed by dietary fat, with a 45% energy from fat preference for fatty foods [40 ,44 ].

diet causing increase in fat taste thresholds (decreased

sensitivity) in lean individuals but not participants with Conclusion

obesity, while a 15% energy from fat diet resulted in Inconsistency between studies is to be expected as there

decrease in fat taste threshold (increased sensitivity) in are multiple factors inﬂuencing sweet and fat taste per-

both lean and participants with obesity [40 ]. The second ceptions/preferences, food preferences, food choices and

study was a 10-week low-fat weight loss diet that resulted the type and quantity of food consumed. One consistent

in decreased fat taste threshold (increased sensitivity) in is the role of dietary fat inﬂuencing fat taste thresholds.

subjects who were overweight and obese [44 ]. The two As fat taste thresholds are associated with energy con-

dietary interventions have been consistent and shown sumption, fat taste has major implications for obesity

that modifying the fat content of diet does inﬂuence fat research and development of obesity related pathologies.

taste threshold. However, a single meal two hours prior to Sweet taste intensity and sugar consumption may be

fat taste threshold has no inﬂuence [36 ], so there appears associated as indicated by a recent dietary intervention,

a critical window between 2 hours and 4 weeks where the and ﬁeld would beneﬁt from further well controlled

level of dietary fat or repeated exposure to high or low fat studies including the use of high intensity sweeteners

foods has an effect of fat taste thresholds. Given the in interventions to gain insights from decoupling sweet-

inﬂuence of diet on fat taste threshold, a single threshold ness and energy.

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2016, 9:55–60 www.sciencedirect.com

Effects of sugar and fat on sweet and fat taste Keast 59

intensity but not perceived pleasantness. Am J Clin Nutr 2015

Conﬂict of interest statement

http://dx.doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.112300.

Nothing declared. This study assessed the effect of a three-month low-sugar diet on sweet

taste intensity, thresholds and preference. There were no changes in

sweet taste threshold or food preference. However, the 13 subjects who

Acknowledgement were on the low-sugar diet perceived sucrose to be signiﬁcantly more

sweet in months two and three of the diet indicating a direct role of dietary

This work is supported by National Health Medical Research Council

sugar in sweet taste intensity.

(NHMRC) grant 1043780 (RK).

16. Cicerale S, Riddell LJ, Keast RS: The association between

perceived sweetness intensity and dietary intake in young

adults. J Food Sci 2012, 77:H31-H35.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, 17. Te Morenga L, Mallard S, Mann J: Dietary sugars and body

have been highlighted as: weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised

controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ 2013, 346:e7492.

of special interest

18. Stanhope KL: Sugar consumption, metabolic disease and

of outstanding interest

obesity: the state of the controversy. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci

2015:1-16.

1. Hu FB: Are reﬁned carbohydrates worse than saturated fat?

Am J Clin Nutr 2010, 91:1541-1542. 19. Grinker J, Hirsch J, Smith DV: Taste sensitivity and susceptibility

to external inﬂuence in obese and normal weight subjects. J

2. Bray GA, Paeratakul S, Popkin BM: Dietary fat and obesity: a

Pers Soc Psychol 1972, 22:320-325.

review of animal, clinical and epidemiological studies. Physiol

Behav 2004, 83:549-555. 20. Grinker J: Obesity and sweet taste. Am J Clin Nutr 1978,

31:1078-1087.

3. Bray GA, Popkin BM: Dietary sugar and body weight: have we

reached a crisis in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes? 21. Ettinger L, Duizer L, Caldwell T: Body fat, sweetness sensitivity,

Health be damned! Pour on the sugar. Diabetes Care 2014, and preference: determining the relationship. Can J Diet Pract

37:950-956. Res 2012, 73:45-48.

4. Breslin PA: An evolutionary perspective on food and human 22. Proserpio C, Laureati M, Pagliarini E: Behavioural and perceptive

taste. Curr Biol 2013, 23:R409-R418. determinants of obesity in Italian adults. Pangborn Sensory

Symposium; Gothenburg: 2015.

5. Stewart J, Seimon RV, Otto B, Keast RS, Clifton PM, Feinle-

Conference presentation showing differences in taste thresholds

Bisset C: Marked differences in gustatory and gastrointestinal

between lean and obese. Obese had signiﬁcantly higher thresholds for

sensitivity to oleic acid between lean and obese men. Am J Clin

four taste primaries (sweet, sour, salty, bitter) and fat taste. Obese had

Nutr 2011, 93:703-711.

higher preference for high density food.

6. Cvijanovic N, Feinle-Bisset C, Young RL, Little TJ: Oral and

23. Donaldson LF, Bennett L, Baic S, Melichar JK: Taste and weight:

intestinal sweet and fat tasting: impact of receptor

is there a link? Am J Clin Nutr 2009, 90:800S-803S.

polymorphisms and dietary modulation for metabolic disease.

Nutr Rev 2015, 73:318-334.

24. Bertoli S, Laureati M, Battezzati A, Bergamaschi V, Cereda E,

Comprehensive review summarising alimentary canal chemoreception

Spadafranca A, Vignati L, Pagliarini E: Taste sensitivity,

and downstream effects on diet consumption.

nutritional status and metabolic syndrome: implication in

weight loss dietary interventions. World J Diabetes 2014, 5:

7. Bartoshuk LM: The psycophysics of taste. Am J Clin Nutr 1978, 717-723.

31:1068-1077.

Investigates changes taste sensitivity during a weight loss dietary pro-

gram. Sensitivity for bitter, sweet, salty and sour tastes was assessed in

8. Keast R, Roper J: A complex relationship among chemical

41 overweight, 52 obese and 56 normal-weight matched controls. a

concentration, detection threshold, and suprathreshold

signiﬁcant association between BMI and both sour taste and global taste

intensity of bitter compounds. Chem Senses 2007, 32:245-253.

acuity score, with lower sensitivity with increasing BMI. No other changes

9. Webb J, Bolhuis DP, Cicerale S, Hayes JE, Keast R: The observed.

relationships between common measurements of taste

25. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Hayes JE, Moskowitz HR, Snyder DJ:

function. Chemosens Percept 2015, 8:11-18.

Psychophysics of sweet and fat perception in obesity:

10. Keskitalo K, Tuorila H, Spector TD, Cherkas LF, Knaapila A, problems, solutions and new perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc

Silventoinen K, Perola M: Same genetic components underlie Lond B Biol Sci 2006, 361:1137-1148.

different measures of sweet taste preference. Am J Clin Nutr Comprehensive review and data paper highlighted by strong psycho-

2007, 86:1663-1669. physical theory and rationale as to why individuals with obesity live in

different sensory and hedonic worlds.

11. Hayes JE, Feeney EL, Allen AL: Do polymorphisms in

chemosensory genes matter for human ingestive behavior? 26. Malcolm R, O’Neil PM, Hirsch A, Curry G: Taste hedonics and

Food Qual Prefer 2013, 30:202-216. thresholds in obesity. Int J Obes 1979, 4:203-212.

12. Pangborn RM, Simone M: Body size and sweetness preference. 27. Pepino MY, Finkbeiner S, Beauchamp GK, Mennella JA: Obese

J Am Diet Assoc 1958, 34:924-928. women have lower monosodium glutamate taste sensitivity

and prefer higher concentrations than do normal-weight

13. Low YQ, Lacy K, Keast R: The role of sweet taste in satiation

women. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2010, 18:959-965.

and satiety. Nutrients 2014, 6:3431-3450.

Review paper summarising individual differences in sweet taste percep- 28. Frijters JE, Rasmussen-Conrad EL: Sensory discrimination,

tion and how this inﬂuences satiation and satiety. intensity perception, and affective judgment of sucrose-

sweetness in the overweight. J Gen Psychol 1982, 107:233-247.

14. Eny KM, Wolever TM, Corey PN, El-Sohemy A: Genetic variation

in TAS1R2 (Ile191Val) is associated with consumption of 29. Rodin J, Moskowitz HR, Bray GA: Relationship between obesity,

sugars in overweight and obese individuals in 2 distinct weight loss, and taste responsiveness. Physiol Behav 1976,

populations. Am J Clin Nutr 2010, 92:1501-1510. 17:591-597.

Ile191Val variations in TAS1R2 genes were associated with habitual

consumption of sugars, but only in participants with BMI > 25. No actual 30. Drewnowski A, Brunzell J, Sande K, Iverius P, Greenwood M:

measures of taste function were formed so it cannot be concluded that Sweet tooth reconsidered: taste responsiveness in human

the gene variation was also associated with variation in sweet taste obesity. Physiol Behav 1985, 35:617-622.

function.

31. Hayes JE, Duffy VB: Oral sensory phenotype identiﬁes level of

15. Wise PM, Nattress L, Flammer LJ, Beauchamp GK: Reduced sugar and fat required for maximal liking. Physiol Behav 2008,

dietary intake of simple sugars alters perceived sweet taste 95:77-87.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2016, 9:55–60

60 Diet, behavior and brain function

32. Hayes JE, Duffy VB: Revisiting sugar–fat mixtures: sweetness 43. Tucker RM, Mattes RD: Inﬂuences of repeated testing on

and creaminess vary with phenotypic markers of oral nonesteriﬁed fatty acid taste. Chem Senses 2013, 38:325-332.

sensation. Chem Senses 2007, 32:225-236.

44. Newman L, Bolhuis D, Torres S, Keast R: Dietary fat restriction

33. Keast R, Costanzo A: Is fat the sixth taste? Evidence and increases fat taste sensitivity in people with obesity. Obesity

implications. Flavour 2015, 4. 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oby.21357. (online publication).

This study assessed the effect of a six week low-fat or portion control diet

34. Heinze JM, Preissl H, Fritsche A, Frank S: Controversies in fat matched for weight-loss on fat taste thresholds, fat perception and

perception. Physiol Behav 2015, 152(Pt B):479-493. preference in people with overweight/obesity. Both diets resulted in a

decrease in fat taste thresholds, and the effect tended to be stronger in

Obesity 366

35. Haslam DW, James WP: . Lancet 2005, :1197-1209. the low-fat diet. The ability to perceive different fat concentrations in

foods was increased after the low-fat diet only, however food preference

36. Keast RS, Azzopardi KM, Newman LP, Haryono RY: Impaired oral

did not change on either diet.

fatty acid chemoreception is associated with acute excess

energy consumption. Appetite 2014, 80:1-6. 45. Mattes RD: Fat taste and lipid metabolism in humans. Physiol

Effect of dietary fat at breakfast on energy consumption at lunch. Those Behav 2005, 86:691-697.

who are classiﬁed as fat taste hypersensitive consumed signiﬁcantly less

energy at lunch than those classiﬁed as fat hyposensitive. 46. Newman L, Haryono R, Keast R: Functionality of fatty acid

chemoreception: a potential factor in the development of

37. Rissanen A, Hakala P, Lissner L, Mattlar CE, Koskenvuo M, obesity? Nutrients 2013, 5:1287-1300.

Ronnemaa T: Acquired preference especially for dietary fat and

47. Brennan IM, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Seimon RV, Otto B,

obesity: a study of weight-discordant monozygotic twin pairs.

Horowitz M, Wishart JM, Feinle-Bisset C: Effects of fat, protein,

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002, 26:973-977.

and carbohydrate and protein load on appetite, plasma

38. Martinez-Ruiz NR, Lopez-Diaz JA, Wall-Medrano A, Jimenez- cholecystokinin, peptide YY, and ghrelin, and energy intake in

Castro JA, Angulo O: Oral fat perception is related with body lean and obese men. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol

mass index, preference and consumption of high-fat foods. 2012, 303:G129-G140.

Physiol Behav 2014, 129:36-42.

48. Pepino MY, Love-Gregory L, Klein S, Abumrad NA: The fatty

Cross-sectional study on fat oral-intensity perception, BMI, food prefer-

acid translocase gene CD36 and lingual lipase inﬂuence

ences and consumption of fat-rich foods. Results showed fat taste was

oral sensitivity to fat in obese subjects. J Lipid Res 2012,

inversely correlated with BMI, preference and consumption of high-fat

foods. 53:561-566.

49. Blundell J, Burley VJ, Cotton JR, Lawton CL: Dietary fat and the

39. Stewart J, Feinle-Bisset C, Golding M, Delahunty C, Clifton PM,

control of energy intake: evaluating the effects of fat on meal

Keast R: Oral sensitivity to fatty acids, food consumption and

size and postmeal satiety. Am J Clin Nutr 1993, 57:772S-777S

BMI in human subjects. Br J Nutr 2010, 104:145-152.

discussion 777S–778S.

40. Stewart J, Keast RS: Recent fat intake modulates fat taste

50. Liang LC, Sakimura J, May D, Breen C, Driggin E, Tepper BJ,

sensitivity in lean and overweight subjects. Int J Obes 2012,

Chung WK, Keller KL: Fat discrimination: a phenotype with

36:834-842.

potential implications for studying fat intake behaviors and

A cross-over design low fat (15% energy) high fat (45% energy) dietary

obesity. Physiol Behav 2012, 105:470-475.

intervention. Lean subject fat taste thresholds increased on the high-fat

diet, but there was no change for obese. Both lean and obese fat taste 51. Stewart J, Newman LP, Keast RS: Oral sensitivity to oleic acid is

threshold decreased on a low-fat diet. associated with fat intake and body mass index. Clin Nutr 2011,

30:838-844.

41. Tucker RM, Edlinger C, Craig BA, Mattes RD: Associations

between BMI and fat taste sensitivity in humans. Chem Senses 52. Kamphuis MM, Saris WH, Westerterp-Plantenga MS: The effect

2014, 39:349-357. of addition of linoleic acid on food intake regulation in linoleic

acid tasters and linoleic acid non-tasters. Br J Nutr 2003,

42. Tucker RM, Nuessle TM, Garneau NL, Smutzer G, Mattes RD: No 90:199-206.

difference in perceived intensity of linoleic acid in the oral

cavity between obese and nonobese individuals. Chem Senses 53. Mattes RD: Fat preference and adherence to a reduced-fat

2015, 40:557-563. diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1993, 57:373-381.

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2016, 9:55–60 www.sciencedirect.com