Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Transdisciplinary research

Evaluation of dietary taste patterns as assessed by FFQ against 24-h recalls and biomarkers of exposure

Abstract

Background/objective

Taste is of key importance in food choice and dietary patterns, but studies on taste profiles are limited. We previously assessed dietary taste patterns by 24 h recalls (24hR), but for epidemiological studies food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) may also be suitable. This study compared dietary taste patterns based on FFQ against 24hR and biomarkers of exposure.

Subjects/methods

A taste database including 467 foods’ sweet, sour, bitter, salt, umami and fat sensation values was combined with food intake data to assess dietary taste patterns: the contribution to energy intake of 6 taste clusters. The FFQ’s reliability was assessed against 3-d 24hR and urinary biomarkers for sodium (Na) and protein intake (N) in Dutch men (n = 449) and women (n = 397) from the NQplus validation study (mean age 53 ± 11 y, BMI 26 ± 4 kg/m2).

Results

Correlations of dietary taste patterns ranged from 0.39–0.68 between FFQ and 24hR (p < 0.05). Urinary Na levels, but not N levels, were positively associated with % energy intake from ‘salt, umami & fat’ tasting foods (Na; FFQ, r = 0.24, 24hR, r = 0.23, p < 0.001, N; FFQ, r = 0.08, p = 0.1394, 24hR, r = 0.05, p = 0.3427).

Conclusions

The FFQ’s reliability against 24hR was acceptable to good for ranking of adults’ dietary taste patterns. Associations between dietary taste patterns and urinary Na and N were similar for FFQ and 24hR. These findings suggests that both FFQ and 24hR can be used in combination with our taste database, to investigate potential relationships between dietary taste patterns and subgroups at risk of obesity and chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Food Information Council. The 2015 Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes toward Food Safety, Nutrition & Health. 2015. Internet: Available from: http://www.foodinsight.org/2015-food-health-survey-consumer-research (accessed June 2017).

  2. van Dongen MV, van den Berg MC, Vink N, Kok FJ, de Graaf C. Taste–nutrient relationships in commonly consumed foods. Br J Nutr. 2012;108:140–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lease H, Hendrie GA, Poelman AAM, Delahunty C, Cox DN. A sensory-diet database: a tool to characterise the sensory qualities of diets. Food Qual Preference. 2016;49:20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Langeveld AWB, Gibbons S, Koelliker Y, Civille GV, de Vries JHM, de Graaf C, et al. The relationship between taste and nutrient content in commercially available foods from the United States. Food Qual Preference. 2017;57:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de Graaf C, Kok FJ. Slow food, fast food and the control of food intake. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2010;6:290–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Griffioen-Roose S, Hogenkamp PS, Mars M, Finlayson G, de Graaf C. Taste of a 24-h diet and its effect on subsequent food preferences and satiety. Appetite. 2012;59:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bolhuis DP, Lakemond CMM, de Wijk RA, Luning PA, de Graaf C. Both longer oral sensory exposure to and higher intensity of saltiness decrease ad libitum food intake in healthy normal-weight men. J Nutr. 2011;141:2242–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McCrickerd K, Forde CG. Sensory influences on food intake control: Moving beyond palatability. Obes Rev. 2016;17:18–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Meilgaard MC, Civille GV, Carr BT. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. 4th edn. (CRC Press, MI, New York, 2007).

  10. Wolters CJ, Allchurch EM. Effect of training procedure on the performance of descriptive panels. Food Qual Preference. 1994;5:203–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chollet S, Valentin D. Impact of training on beer flavor perception and description: are trained and untrained subjects really different? J Sens Stud. 2000;16:601–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Losó V, Gere A, Györey A, Kókai Z, Sipos L. Comparison of the performance of a trained and an untrained sensory panel on sweetcorn varieties with the panelcheck software. Appl Stud Agribus Commer. 2012;6:77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Martin C, Visalli M, Lange C, Schlich P, Issanchou S. Creation of a food taste database using an in-home ‘taste’ profile method. Food Qual Preference. 2014;36:70–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van Langeveld AWB, Teo PS, de Vries JHM, Feskens EJM, de Graaf C, Mars M. Dietary taste patterns by sex and weight status in the Netherlands. Br J Nutr. 2018;119:1195–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ocké MC, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Pols MA, Smit HA, van Staveren WA, Kromhout D. The Dutch EPIC food frequency questionnaire. II. Relative validity and reproducibility for nutrients. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26:S49–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Streppel MT, de Vries JHM, Meijboom S, Beekman M, de Craen AJM, Slagboom PE, et al. Relative validity of the food frequency questionnaire used to assess dietary intake in the Leiden Longevity Study. Nutr J. 2013;12:75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sluik D, Geelen A, de Vries JHM, SJPM Eussen, HAM Brants, Meijboom S, et al. A national FFQ for the Netherlands (the FFQ-NL 1.0): validation of a comprehensive FFQ for adults. Br J Nutr. 2016;116:913–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Willet, W. Nutritional Epidemiology. 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013).

  19. Brouwer-Brolsma EM, Streppel MT, van Lee L, Geelen A, Sluik D, van de Wiel AM et al. A National Dietary Assessment ReferenceDatabase (NDARD) for the Dutch population: rationale behind the design. 2017. Internet, Available from: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201706.0118/v1 (accessed on October 2017).

  20. Meijboom S, Streppel MT, Perenboom C, Siebelink E, van de Wiel AM, Geelen A, et al. Evaluation of dietary intake assessed by the Dutch self-administered web-based dietary 24-h recall tool (Compl-eatTM) against interviewer-administered telephone-based 24-h recalls. J Nutr Sci. 2017;6:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Siebelink E, Geelen A, de Vries JHM. Self-reported energy intake by FFQ compared with actual energy intake to maintain body weight in 516 adults. Br J Nutr. 2011;106:274–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jakobsen J, Ovesen L, Fagt S, Pedersen AN. Para-aminobenzoic acid used as a marker for completeness of 24 h urine: assessment of control limits for a specific HPLC method. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997;51:514–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hagfors L, Westerterp K, Sköldstam L, Johansson G. Validity of reported energy expenditure and reported intake of energy, protein, sodium and potassium in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a dietary intervention study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005;59:238–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Holbrook JT, Patterson KY, Bodner JE. Sodium and potassium intake and balance in adults consuming self-selected diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984;40:786–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kjeldahl J. Neue methode zur bestimmung des stickstoffs in organischen körpern. Fresenius J Anal Chem. 1883;22:366–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. European Food Safety Authority. Example of a protocol for identification of misreporting (under- and overreporting of energy intake) based on the PILOT-PANEU project. 2017. Internet: Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu (accessed on June 2017).

  27. Teo PS, van Langeveld AWB, Pol K, Siebelink E, de Graaf C, Martin C, et al. Training of a Dutch and Malaysian sensory panel to assess basic taste intensities and fat sensations of commonly consumed foods. Food Qual Preference. 2017;65:49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van Rossum CTM, Fransen HP, Verkaik-Kloosterman J, Buurma-Rethans EJM, Ocké MC. Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2007–10: Diet of children and adults aged 7 to 69 years. (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment: Utrecht, the Netherlands, 2011).

  29. Henderson HHF. Het nieuwe kookboek (The new Dutch cookbook). (Kosmos, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2008)

  30. Ward JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc. 1963;58:236–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nederlands Voedingsstoffenbestand. (NEVO) Dutch food consumption database. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Slimani N, Deharveng G, Charrondière RU, van Kappel AL, Ocké MC, Welch A, et al. Structure of the standardized computerized 24-h diet recall interview used as reference method in the 22 centers participating in the EPIC project. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 1999;58:251–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. De Graaf C, Frijters JER. Interrelationships among sweetness, saltiness and total taste intensity of sucrose, NaCl and sucrose/NaCl mixtures. Chem Senses. 1989;14:81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Green BG, Lim J, Osterhoff F, Blacher K, Nachtigal D. Taste mixture interactions: suppression, additivity, and the predominance of sweetness. Physiol Behav. 2010;101:731–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Benítez-Arciniega AA, Mendez MA, Baena-Díez JM, Rovira Martori M, Soler C, Marrugat J, et al. Concurrent and construct validity of Mediterranean diet scores as assessed by an FFQ. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:2015–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marques-Vidal P, Ross A, Wynn E, Rezzi S, Paccaud F, Decarli B. Reproducibility and relative validity of a food-frequency questionnaire for French-speaking Swiss adults. Food Nutr Res. 2011;55:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lombard MJ, Steyn NP, Charlton KE, Senekal M. Application and interpretation of multiple statistical tests to evaluate validity of dietary intake assessment methods. Nutr J. 2015;14:40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. van Rossum CTM, Buurma-Rethans EJM, Fransen HP, Verkaik-Kloosterman J, Hendriksen MAH. Zoutconsumptie van kinderen en volwassenen in Nederland: resultaten uit de Voedselconsumptiepeiling 2007–10. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Goldberg GR, Black AE, Jebb SA, Cole TJ, Murgatroyd PR, Coward WA, et al. Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: 1. Derivation of cut-off limits to identify under-recording. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991;45:569–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Els Siebelink, Korrie Pol, Marlot Smulders, Eric Benyon, Petroula Gogoulou, Sandra Scheffel, Martha van der Velde, Delphine Dupuis, Chloé Parizel, Zahabia Jivaji, Desiree Lucassen, Janneke Schultink, Renske Geers and Vera van Stokkom for their assistance and/or advice during data collection.

Funding:

This study was supported by a collaborative agreement between the chair of Sensory Science and Eating Behaviour, Department of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University; the chair of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour; Sub-department Business, Consumer and Competence Studies, Wageningen University; Consumer Science and Health, Wageningen Food & Biobased Research; Danone Nutricia Research; Heineken BV; Friesland Campina Research; and Unilever R&D Vlaardingen. The Nutrition Questionnaires plus study was core funded by ZonMw (ZonMw, Grant 91110030).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows—AWBvL, PST, MM, EJMF, CdG, JHMdV: designed the research; AWBvL and PST: conducted the research; AWBvL: analysed the data and had primary responsibility for the final content of the manuscript; AWBvL: wrote the manuscript; PST, MM, EJMF, CdG, JHMdV: provided critical edits to and reviewed the manuscript; and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeanne H. M. de Vries.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards disclosure

The study was approved by the ethical committee of Wageningen University (ABR numbers: NQplus study, NL34775.081.10 and Taste, Fat and Texture study, NL47315.081.13) and was conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki. The Taste, Fat and Texture study was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ as NCT03233503.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Langeveld, A.W.B., Teo, P.S., Mars, M. et al. Evaluation of dietary taste patterns as assessed by FFQ against 24-h recalls and biomarkers of exposure. Eur J Clin Nutr 73, 132–140 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0300-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0300-1

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links