IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i17p11101-d906787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Glutamate-Sodium Discrimination Status in Adults Is Associated with Salt Recognition Threshold and Habitual Intake of Discretionary Food and Meat: A Cross-Sectional Study

Author

Listed:
  • Isabella Hartley

    (CASS Food Research Centre, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Victoria 3125, Australia)

  • Andrew Costanzo

    (CASS Food Research Centre, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Victoria 3125, Australia)

  • Djin Gie Liem

    (CASS Food Research Centre, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Victoria 3125, Australia)

  • Russell Keast

    (CASS Food Research Centre, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Victoria 3125, Australia)

Abstract

Umami non-discriminators (NDs) are a sub-group of the population with a reduced ability to discriminate between monosodium glutamate (MSG) and sodium chloride (NaCl) compared to umami discriminators (UDs). No research has investigated umami and salty taste perception associations across detection threshold (DT), recognition threshold (RT), and suprathreshold intensity perception (ST) or the habitual dietary intake of ND. Adults ( n = 61, mean age of 30 ± 8 years, n = 40 females) completed taste assessments measuring their DT, RT, and ST for salty, umami (MSG and monopotassium glutamate (MPG)), and sweet tastes. To determine the umami discrimination status, participants completed 24 triangle tests containing 29 mM NaCl and 29 mM MSG, and those with ≥13 correct identifications were considered UDs. Habitual dietary intake was recorded via a food frequency questionnaire. NDs made up 14.8% ( n = 9) of the study population, and UDs made up 85.2% ( n = 52). NDs were less sensitive to salt at RT (mean step difference: −1.58, p = 0.03), and they consumed more servings of meat and poultry daily (1.3 vs. 0.6 serves, p = 0.006); fewer servings of discretionary food (1.6 vs. 2.4, p = 0.001); and, of these, fewer salty discretionary foods (0.9 vs. 1.3, p = 0.003) than NDs. Identifying these NDs may provide insight into a population at risk of the overconsumption of discretionary foods and reduced intake of protein-rich meat foods.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabella Hartley & Andrew Costanzo & Djin Gie Liem & Russell Keast, 2022. "Glutamate-Sodium Discrimination Status in Adults Is Associated with Salt Recognition Threshold and Habitual Intake of Discretionary Food and Meat: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-13, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:11101-:d:906787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/11101/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/11101/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayaram Chandrashekar & Mark A. Hoon & Nicholas J. P. Ryba & Charles S. Zuker, 2006. "The receptors and cells for mammalian taste," Nature, Nature, vol. 444(7117), pages 288-294, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xu, Lidan & Mehta, Ravi & Hoegg, JoAndrea, 2022. "Sweet ideas: How the sensory experience of sweetness impacts creativity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Gwénaëlle Bontonou & Bastien Saint-Leandre & Tane Kafle & Tess Baticle & Afrah Hassan & Juan Antonio Sánchez-Alcañiz & J. Roman Arguello, 2024. "Evolution of chemosensory tissues and cells across ecologically diverse Drosophilids," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Chengpeng Jiang & Honghuan Xu & Lu Yang & Jiaqi Liu & Yue Li & Kuniharu Takei & Wentao Xu, 2024. "Neuromorphic antennal sensory system," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:11101-:d:906787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.