4.7 Review

Alterations in sweet taste function in adults with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and potential implications

Journal

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION
Volume 63, Issue 16, Pages 2613-2625

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2021.2015282

Keywords

Diabetes mellitus; sweet taste; thresholds; intensity; liking; preference

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Individuals with diabetes may have decreased sensitivity to sweetness, leading to increased intake and difficulty in blood glucose management.
Diet therapy for diabetes involves controlling carbohydrate intake in order to manage blood glucose concentrations. Simple carbohydrates, like sucrose, quickly and potently raise blood glucose when ingested, and are typically perceived as sweet. Sweetness is innately pleasurable and contributes to the positive hedonic evaluation of foods and beverages. There is some evidence to suggest that individuals with diabetes mellitus may be less able to detect sweetness, which could result in increased intake and, thus, more difficulty managing blood glucose. A systematic review that included PubMed, PsycInfo, and Embase databases was conducted. Inclusion criteria included observational studies that investigated the sweet taste function of adults with and without diabetes mellitus (Prospero CRD42021225058). The quality of the final included studies was assessed using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Evidence Analysis Library Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research tool. Eighteen studies that compared sweet taste thresholds, intensity ratings, or hedonic responses in adults both with and without diabetes were included. Differences in sweet taste thresholds, both detection and recognition, indicated that individuals with diabetes were less sensitive than healthy controls. The same findings were observed for intensity ratings. Only two studies examined hedonic responses; results were inconclusive.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available