Just noticeable difference in sweetness perception of cola: Small changes in sugar are noticeable.

Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption contributes to obesity and related diseases. Fortunately, beverages with reduced sweetness are a growing category in the beverage industry. These lower sweetness products could be useful for reducing the total dietary intake of sugar, but publicly available data are sparse on how much sweetness can be reduced without the change becoming noticeable to consumers. We investigated the just noticeable difference (JND) in sweetness of a cola-flavored carbonated beverage. Two sensory tests were conducted to detect the JND from 12.00% w/w sucrose. In each test, we used cola-flavored seltzer water with five decreasing sucrose concentrations (test 1:8.02-12.00% w/w; test 2:10.21-12.00% w/w). In both tests, samples were paired with the 12.00% reference, and participants were instructed to identify the sweeter sample. Participants correctly identified the reference sample at 10.21% in test one (p = .0039) and at 10.89% (p = .014) in test two. The data indicate that in a cola beverage, sucrose can be reduced by ~9.25% of the original concentration (12.00-10.89% w/w) before the sweetness becomes apparent to consumers. However, further work should consider whether sugar reductions greater than 9.25% would be acceptable, even if the difference in sweetness is apparent. Practical Applications: These data could help researchers and industry product developers know how much sugar can be reduced from a cola-flavored beverage before the change is apparent to consumers.

Ultraprocessed Foods and Obesity Risk: A Critical Review of Reported Mechanisms.

Epidemiologic evidence supports a positive association between ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption and body mass index. This has led to recommendations to avoid UPFs despite very limited evidence establishing causality. Many mechanisms have been proposed, and this review critically aimed to evaluate selected possibilities for specificity, clarity, and consistency related to food choice (i.e., low cost, shelf-life, food packaging, hyperpalatability, and stimulation of hunger/suppression of fullness); food composition (i.e., macronutrients, food texture, added sugar, fat and salt, energy density, low-calorie sweeteners, and additives); and digestive processes (i.e., oral processing/eating rate, gastric emptying time, gastrointestinal transit time, and microbiome). For some purported mechanisms (e.g., fiber content, texture, gastric emptying, and intestinal transit time), data directly contrasting the effects of UPF and non-UPF intake on the indices of appetite, food intake, and adiposity are available and do not support a unique contribution of UPFs. In other instances, data are not available (e.g., microbiome and food additives) or are insufficient (e.g., packaging, food cost, shelf-life, macronutrient intake, and appetite stimulation) to judge the benefits versus the risks of UPF avoidance. There are yet other evoked mechanisms in which the preponderance of evidence indicates ingredients in UPFs actually moderate body weight (e.g., low-calorie sweetener use for weight management; beverage consumption as it dilutes energy density; and higher fat content because it reduces glycemic responses). Because avoidance of UPFs holds potential adverse effects (e.g., reduced diet quality, increased risk of food poisoning, and food wastage), it is imprudent to make recommendations regarding their role in diets before causality and plausible mechanisms have been verified.