The Perceived Bitterness of Beer and 6‐n‐Propylthiouracil (PROP) Taste Sensitivity

Abstract

Pelchat and Danowski found a significantly higher proportion of nontasters of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) among children of alcoholics than among children of nonalcohlics, suggesting a possible genetic association between alcoholism and PROP tasting ability. They suggested that nontasters may not find alcohol as bitter as tasters do and may be at greater risk for alcoholism because they like the taste of alcoholic beverages more. In the present study we tested this hypothesis by examining how nontasters, medium tasters, and supertasters of PROP judged the taste of two kinds of beer. Forty-seven males and 53 females between the ages of 21 and 49 rated the perceived bitterness of Budweiser and Pilsner Urquell on the oral Labeled Magnitude Scale (LMS). Subjects also rated their degree of liking or disliking for the two beers on a 9-point Likert scale. PROP papers and the LMS were used to classify subjects into tasting groups. The results lent some support to the hypothesis in that male nontasters liked the taste of Pilsner Urquell better than male supertasters, when they tasted Pilsner Urquell after Budweiser. (This finding was not replicated for females). Also, as subjects' ratings of bitterness for the two beers increased, their degree of liking for the taste decreased. Supertasters rated Pilsner Urquell significantly more bitter than medium tasters. Subjects were asked about their drinking habits, and supertasters reported consuming significantly less beer than nontasters when they first started drinking beer on a regular basis. There were no significant differences in current drinking behavior between tasting groups. These results suggest that supertasters are distinct from nontasters with regard to their taste for beer and may to some degree be protected against alcoholism by their dislike for bitter substances.

Assessment of Upper Respiratory Tract and Ocular Irritative Effects of Volatile Chemicals in Humans

“…Psychophysical functions produced by the LMS and by magnitude estimation do not differ statistically for a number of chemosensory stimuli, suggesting that the LMS mimics the ratio-like properties of magnitude estimation scaling; [134][135][136][137] although it might also mimic the contextual effects that influence magnitude estimation. 138 The LMS has been successfully employed in a number of nasal and oral irritation studies.…”

A Preference Study for No Alcohol Beer in Italy Using Quantitative Concept Analysis

“…In fact variation is both genetic and experience related. The individual variation in salivary flow rates 8 , the concentration of fungiform papillae in the oral cavity, which determines the status of taster or non-taster for bitterness, and individual experiences are reported to enhance acceptance of bitter and astringent foods 14,21,40,41 . To our ancestors, bitterness may have been the 'radar' that a food might be unsafe to eat, and the types of food which are responsible for these particular notes can elicit negative consumer reactions.…”

Association of thermal taste and PROP responsiveness with food liking, neophobia, body mass index, and waist circumference

“…The increased responsiveness of pSTs to tastant solutions appears to translate into increased responsiveness to the same taste qualities in food. pSTs perceive bitterness (Akella, Henderson, & Drewnowski, 1997;Dinehart, Hayes, Bartoshuk, Lanier, & Duffy, 2006;Intranuovo & Powers, 1998;Lanier, Hayes, & Duffy, 2005;Mattes, 2004;Sandell & Breslin, 2006;Tepper et al, 2009;Zhao & Tepper, 2007), sourness (Prescott, Soo, Campbell, & Roberts, 2004), astringency (Pickering et al, 2006;Pickering, Simunkova, & DiBattista, 2004), saltiness (Sullivan et al, 2007), sweetness (Duffy, Peterson, Dinehart, & Bartoshuk, 2003;, and creaminess (Duffy, Bartoshuk, Lucchina, Snyder, & Tym, 1996;Tepper & Nurse, 1997) from foods and beverages more intensely than pMTs and/or pNTs. Hedonic responses also vary with perceived PROP intensity and PTS.…”

“…pNTs are more likely to be sweet 'likers', those whose hedonic responses increase with increasing sweetness, while pSTs are more likely to be sweet 'dislikers', those whose hedonic responses decreased with increasing sweetness (Looy & Weingarten, 1992;Yeomans, Tepper, Rietzschel, & Prescott, 2007). PROP bitterness intensity, used as a continuous measure or in the categorization of individuals into PTS groups, has been shown to predict liking of cruciferous vegetables, coffee, grapefruit juice, high-fat foods, whiskey, and some beers when ratings are taken from sampled foods or self-reported checklists (Dinehart et al, 2006;Drewnowski, Ahlstrom-Henderson, Hann, Berg, & Ruffin, 2000;Drewnowski, Ahlstrom-Henderson, & Shore, 1997;Drewnowski, Ahlstrom-Henderson, Shore, & Barratt-Fornell, 1998;Duffy, Fast, & Bartoshuk, 1999;Intranuovo & Powers, 1998;Lanier et al, 2005;Tepper & Nurse, 1998;Villarino, Fernandez, Alday, & Cubelo, 2009). It is hypothesized that pNTs' greater liking of high-fat foods leads them to consume more high-fat foods, which, over time, could lead to increased weight gain and obesity-related disease (Duffy, 2007;Tepper & Ullrich, 2002).…”

“…Some studies have found that pNTs have a higher BMI and body fatness than pSTs (Goldstein, Daun, & Tepper, 2005). The increased acceptance of alcohol-related sensations and the higher consumption of alcoholic beverages by pNTs could also contribute to an increased risk of disease and illness (Guinard et al, 1996;Intranuovo & Powers, 1998). pNTs have been found to present greater measured cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk (Duffy, 2004).…”