3.8 Article

Tasting profile affects adoption of caloric beverage reduction in a randomized weight loss intervention

Journal

OBESITY SCIENCE & PRACTICE
Volume 2, Issue 4, Pages 392-398

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/osp4.64

Keywords

Beverages; dietary adherence; tasting preference; water

Funding

  1. Nestle Waters USA
  2. UNC Interdisciplinary Obesity Center (NIH) [T32 MH075854]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The aim of this study was to examine differences in rates of non-caloric beverage adoption by participants classified as sweet likers (SLs) or sweet dislikers (measured using a behavioural tasting task). Methods Data are a sub-study from a 6-month, three-group, randomized weight loss trial (CHOICE) (body mass index 36.3 +/- 5.8 kg m(-2), 84% female, aged 42.2 +/- 10.9 years, 53% African-American) comparing the replacement of caloric beverages with either non-caloric sweetened beverages (diet) or water (water) compared with a control group. This sub-study, which included participants within the water (n = 106) and diet (n = 103) groups only, examined whether SLs (n = 33 water; n = 37 diet) varied in their adherence to caloric beverage recommendations compared with sweet dislikers (n = 73 water; n = 76 diet) over the 6-month study. Results Diet intake and sweet-liking data collected on 190 (3 months) and 169 participants (6 months) were used for analysis. The interaction between SL status and beverage group (diet vs. water) approached significance (P = 0.06) at 3 months but not 6 months. Caloric beverage intake (% energy) at 3 months was significantly higher in SLs within the water group (9.7 +/- 1.4%) compared with SLs in the diet group (5.4 +/- 1.0%, P = 0.03). Conclusions Results suggest that SL status may affect the rate in reduction of caloric beverages when water is the recommended substitution. Future studies should explore tailoring beverage recommendations to tasting profile.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available