Supertasters: Exploring the Link Between Taste Buds and Food Preferences

Our sense of taste is a powerful determinant of our dietary choices and overall health. Flavor, a complex perception created by our brain from taste and smell, plays a pivotal role in guiding our food selection. While taste and smell are often used interchangeably, they are distinct senses. Taste is innate, observable even in infants, while smell is a learned experience. Humans recognize five basic tastes: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami, with fat increasingly recognized as a sixth. These tastes are believed to be evolutionary adaptations, guiding us towards nutritious foods and away from potential toxins.

Humans possess an incredible sense of smell, capable of detecting thousands of odors at minute concentrations. This sensitivity helps us locate food and avoid spoilage, often before we even take a bite. We experience smell through two pathways: orthonasal smell (sniffing through the nose) and retronasal smell (aroma released in the mouth while chewing). Retronasal smell significantly contributes to flavor, accounting for a large percentage of our food flavor perception. This explains why a blocked nose during a cold diminishes our ability to taste food.

Taste and smell are detected by specialized receptors on taste and olfactory cells, providing a direct link to our brain. While taste receptors are limited, we have around 400 types of smell receptors. These sensory cells are constantly renewed, but their numbers decline with age, particularly after 70. A reduced sense of smell, or hyposmia, can be an early indicator of neurodegenerative conditions like Parkinson’s disease. Taste cells are grouped in taste buds, located within papillae, the visible bumps on our tongue and in the mouth and throat.

Taste receptors interact in complex ways. For example, sweet and umami receptors are linked, explaining our preference for sweet and savory combinations. Salt can mask bitterness, and fat can reduce saltiness. Intriguingly, taste receptors, especially for sweetness, are also found throughout our gastrointestinal tract, playing roles in digestion and satiety. These gut taste receptors influence glucose absorption, insulin secretion, and hunger signals, suggesting a broader impact on metabolism beyond just taste preference.

Genetic variations significantly influence our taste perception, particularly bitterness. This leads to the concept of “tasters” and “non-tasters”, and the extreme end of the spectrum, “supertasters.”

• Supertasters experience bitterness intensely, while non-tasters perceive little to no bitterness. The majority fall into the category of average tasters.

This classification was pioneered by Dr. Linda Bartoshuk, who used the bitter chemical 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) to identify taste sensitivity groups. About 25% of people are supertasters of PROP, 25-30% are non-tasters, and 45-50% are average tasters. Supertasters find even small amounts of PROP overwhelmingly bitter, while average tasters detect only a mild bitterness. The key difference lies in the tongue itself: supertasters have more fungiform papillae compared to non-supertasters.

What are Fungiform Papillae?

Fungiform papillae are the mushroom-shaped bumps visible on the tongue’s surface, primarily at the tip and edges. They contain taste buds, which house taste receptor cells. The density of fungiform papillae varies significantly among individuals. Supertasters, as the name suggests, possess a higher density of these papillae, meaning they have more taste buds packed into a smaller area. This anatomical difference is the primary reason for their heightened taste sensitivity, particularly to bitterness. While supertasters are most sensitive to bitter tastes, they also experience sweet, salty, and umami tastes more intensely, although to a lesser degree.

Fungiform Papillae and Taste Perception:

The increased number of fungiform papillae in supertasters translates to a heightened sensory experience. Each papilla contains multiple taste buds, and each taste bud contains numerous taste receptor cells. With more fungiform papillae, supertasters have a larger number of taste receptors overall. These receptors bind to taste molecules in food, sending signals to the brain that we perceive as taste. The greater the number of receptors stimulated, the stronger the taste signal.

For bitter compounds like PROP and certain vegetables, supertasters experience an amplified bitter taste due to their increased taste receptor density. This can lead to strong aversions to bitter foods like broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and grapefruit. While this heightened sensitivity might seem advantageous, it often results in supertasters being pickier eaters.

The Downside of Being a Supertaster:

Despite their enhanced taste abilities, supertasters don’t necessarily enjoy food more. Their heightened sensitivity to bitterness can make them dislike many foods, especially vegetables.

• Supertasters often avoid spicy foods because they also have more pain receptors around their taste cells, making them more sensitive to the burning sensation of chili peppers.
• Conversely, non-tasters tend to enjoy spicy foods and often require more seasoning, except for salt. Interestingly, supertasters tend to consume more sodium than non-tasters, likely because salt helps to mask bitterness.

Average tasters, in contrast, typically enjoy a wider variety of foods. They are not overly sensitive to bitterness but still possess a keen enough sense of taste to appreciate flavors without excessive seasoning.

Health Implications of Taste Sensitivity:

Genetic variations in taste sensitivity, particularly in supertasters, non-tasters, and average tasters, have been linked to various food preferences, dietary habits, and health outcomes.

• Supertasters, with their aversion to bitter tastes, may consume fewer vegetables, potentially increasing their risk of colon polyps, a precursor to colon cancer.
• However, supertasters, especially women, may have a lower preference for sweet, high-fat foods, resulting in a lower BMI and better cardiovascular health profiles.
• Non-tasters, on the other hand, tend to prefer high-fat, sweeter foods, and are more likely to consume alcohol and develop alcoholism.
• Supertasters are less inclined to consume alcohol and smoke.
• Studies suggest a correlation between PROP taste sensitivity and body weight, with those least sensitive to PROP tending to be heavier.

While research is ongoing and consensus is still developing, the observed correlations between taste sensitivity and health outcomes highlight the significant connection between our sense of taste and overall well-being. Understanding your taste status through PROP test strips, available online, or simply by observing the density of fungiform papillae on your tongue in a mirror, can provide valuable insights into your food preferences and potential health risks. Further research is crucial to fully unravel the complex interplay between taste genetics, diet, and long-term health.

References

1. Prescott, J., Taste Matters-Why We Like the Foods We Do, Reaktion Books, London, 2012.
2. Shepherd, G. M., Neurogastronomy-How the Brain Creates Flavor and Why it Matters, Columbia University Press, New York, 2012.
3. Running, C. A., B. A. Bruce, and R. D. Mattes, Oleogustus: The Unique Taste of Fat. Chem Senses, 2015; 40(7):507-516.
4. Doty, R.L., Olfactory Dysfunction in Parkinson Disease. Nat Rev Neurol, 2012; 8(6):329-339.
5. Sclafani, A., Sweet Taste Signaling in the Gut. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 2007; 104(38):14887-14888.
6. Depoortere, I., Taste Receptors of the Gut: Emerging Roles in Health and Disease. Gut, 2014; 63:179-190.
7. Gerspach, A. C., et al., The Role of the Gut Sweet Taste Receptor in Regulating GLP-1, PYY, and CCK Release in Humans. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 2011; 301:E317-E325.
8. Young, R. L., et al., Disordered Control of Sweet Taste Receptor Expression and Glucose Absorption in Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes, 2013; 62:3532-3541.
9. Bartoshuk, L. M., V. B. Duffy, I. J. Miller, PTC/PROP Tasting: Anatomy, Psychophysics, and Sex Effects. Physiol Behav, 1994; 56: 1165-1171.
10. Prescott, J. and B. J. Tepper, eds., Genetic Variation in Taste Sensitivity, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2004.
11. Hayes, J. E., B. S. Sullivan and V. B. Duffy, Explaining Variability in Sodium Intake Through Oral Sensory Phenotype, Salt Sensation and Liking. Physiol Behav, 2010; 100(4):369-380.
12. Giovannucci, E., Modifiable Risk Factors for Colon Cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 2002; 31:925-943.
13. Hutchins, H. L., N. A. Healy, and V. B. Duffy, PROP Bitterness Associates with Dietary Fat Behaviors and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) in Middle-Aged Women. Chem Senses, 2003; 28:551-563.
14. DiCarlo, S. T. and A. S. Powers, Propylthiouracil Tasting as a Possible Genetic Association Marker for Two Types of Alcoholsim. Physiol Behav, 1998; 64:147-152.
15. Drewnowski, A., 6-n-Propylthiouracil Sensitivity, Food Choices, and Food Consumption. In J. Prescott and B. J. Tepper, eds., Genetic Variation in Taste Sensitivity, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2004, pages 179-193.
16. Mattes, R. D., 6-n-Propylthiouracil Taste Status-Dietary Modifier, Marker, or Misleader? In J. Prescott and B. J. Tepper, eds., Genetic Variation in Taste Sensitivity, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2004, pages 229-250.