summary: New research challenges common assumptions about food preferences, especially ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
The study analyzed the responses of 224 adults to images of 52 familiar foods, assessing factors such as energy density, level of processing, and carbohydrate-to-fat ratio. Surprisingly, UPF was not found to be more likable or desirable than less processed options. Instead, foods with balanced carbohydrate and fat content, high flavor intensity, but low fiber content were more preferred.
This study suggests that our innate preferences may be geared toward maximizing caloric intake rather than satiety, and although this trait can adapt to fluctuations in food availability, This is a problem in today’s food-rich environment.
Important facts:
- Contrary to popular belief, UPF was not preferred or desired over less processed foods.
- Foods with a balanced carbohydrate-to-fat ratio and high flavor intensity were more preferred.
- The study proposes that humans innately prefer foods that are less satiating but higher in calories, reflecting an evolutionary adaptation to maximize caloric intake.
sauce: University of Bristol
The study, led by Bristol’s Nutrition and Behavior Group, found that a food’s energy density (calories per gram), level of processing, and carbohydrate-to-fat ratio are important factors influencing food preference and desirability. They wanted to test a common but largely untested hypothesis.
In the experiment, which involved 224 adult volunteers, participants were presented with color images of 24 to 32 well-known foods that varied in energy density, level of processing (including UPF), and carbohydrate-to-fat ratio. . There were a total of 52 foods, including avocados, grapes, cashews, shrimp, olives, blueberry muffins, crispbread, pepperoni sausage, and ice cream.
Next, participants were asked to imagine tasting the food and rate the taste’s pleasantness (liking), desire to eat it, sweetness, and saltiness. The effectiveness of this method was confirmed, for example, by the finding that there is a strong relationship between sweetness ratings and the sugar content of foods.
The results of the study showed that, on average, UPF is not as liked or desired as processed or unprocessed foods. However, foods that combine more equal amounts (calories) of carbohydrates and fats are preferred and sought after than foods that contain the same amount of calories mostly as carbohydrates or mostly as fat. This is known as the “combo” effect from previous research.
Furthermore, it was found that foods with higher amounts of dietary fiber were less liked and desired, and foods with stronger flavors (mainly related to sweetness and saltiness levels) were more liked and desired.
Professor Peter Rogers, from the School of Psychological Sciences and lead author of the study, commented that the UPF results were surprising. “Our results challenge the assumption that ultra-processed foods are ‘very tasty’, and it seems strange that they have not been directly tested before,” he said.
“However, in our study, ultra-processing did not reliably predict liking (palatability), but it did predict a food’s carbohydrate-to-fat ratio, dietary fiber content, and flavor intensity. In fact, these three characteristics together accounted for more than half of the liking (palatability).” Variation in liking among the foods tested.
“The sweet and salty results are consistent with our innate sweet and salty preferences. And the carbohydrate-to-fat ratio and fiber results are related to another important characteristic that determines food preference. You may have.
“Our suggestion is that humans are programmed to prefer foods that contain more equal amounts of carbohydrates and fats and less fiber, because these foods are less satiating per calorie. In other words: In other words, we value calories more than feeling full.
“Conversely, this property helps maximize caloric intake and store fat when food is plentiful. This is useful in situations where the food supply is uncertain or seasonal. adapts, but not when food is continuously available beyond immediate needs.”
The Nutrition and Behavior Group is currently testing the concept of calories and satiety in further research on food preferences and dietary preferences, including across different countries and cuisines.
Funding: This research was funded by the School of Psychological Sciences at the University of Bristol.
About this neuroscience and diet research news
author: Joan Fryer
sauce: University of Bristol
contact: Joanne Fryer – University of Bristol
image: Image credited to Neuroscience News
Original research: Open access.
“Evidence that carbohydrate-to-fat ratio and taste, rather than energy density or NOVA processing level, are determinants of food preference and food rewardWritten by Peter Rogers et al. appetite
abstract
Evidence that carbohydrate-to-fat ratio and taste, rather than energy density or NOVA processing level, are determinants of food preference and food reward
This virtual (online) study tested the common but little tested assumption that food energy density, processing level (NOVA category), and carbohydrate-to-fat (CF) ratio are important determinants of food reward. did.
Individual participants (224 men and women, mean age 35 years, 53% healthy weight, 43% overweight or obese) were randomly assigned to one of three within-subject study arms. : Energy density (32 foods) or Energy density (32 foods) Processing (24 foods) or CF ratio (24 foods). They rated the foods for taste pleasantness (liking), desire to eat (food reward), and sweet, salty, and flavor intensity (averaged as taste intensity in analyses).
Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no positive relationship between preference or food reward and energy density or processing level. As hypothesized, foods that combined carbohydrates and fats with more equal amounts of energy (combo foods) and foods with more intense tastes received higher scores on both liking and food reward.
Furthermore, we found that CF ratio, taste intensity, and dietary fiber content (minus) accounted for 56% and 43% of the variance in palatability and food reward, respectively, independent of energy density. Interpret CF ratio and dietary fiber results in terms of food energy satiety ratio (ESR). Complex foods have a higher ESR and high-fiber foods have a lower ESR.
We suggest that indicators of ESR should be considered when designing future studies on the effects of food composition on food reward, preference, and intake.
