Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter, Protein ... and Now Fat

ral writes "The human tongue can taste more than sweet, sour, salty, bitter and protein. Researchers have added fat to that list. Dr. Russell Keast, an exercise and nutrition sciences professor at Deakin University in Melbourne, told Slashfood, 'This makes logical sense. We have sweet to identify carbohydrate/sugars, and umami to identify protein/amino acids, so we could expect a taste to identify the other macronutrient: fat.' In the Deakin study, which appears in the latest issue of the British Journal of Nutrition, Dr. Keast and his team gave a group of 33 people fatty acids found in common foods, mixed in with nonfat milk to disguise the telltale fat texture. All 33 could detect the fatty acids to at least a small degree."

Re:Show me the receptors

[Mindcontrolled]

The fact that I included that part in my comment gives indication that I might not have missed it. My point is that the fatty acids still change the physicochemical properties of the milk, and that that might have been what was detected by the test persons. I am not saying that the conclusion is wrong, I am saying that in my opinion this is not enough to establish a new category of taste, taste being defined by specific receptor molecules.

Re:Protein?

[amRadioHed]

You mean it took you a few minutes to get to the third sentence in the summary where it said just that?

A special category of first post for science

[spun]

In any science story, we will more than likely find a special category of 'first post' comment: the 'I'm smarter than teh science-talking-guys!" first post. These posts always feature a blindingly obvious 'criticism' of the science at hand, usually made by someone with no formal training in the field, that any competent scientist will take into account, but many halfway competent science writers will fail to mention. Thus, to the uninformed, the first poster appears insightful. "Wow! Good call, how could those dumb scientists miss that?!?" Uh, yeah, they didn't. I'm just curious, but what is your background in biology and chemistry? Are you educated on this subject, or are you just one of those people who likes to think they know better than those boneheaded scientist-types?

Just in case I haven't made it crystal clear: you have not thought up anything the scientists did not take into account. I guarantee, you have not come up with a cogent criticism of this experiment, and you are not smarter than the fellows performing this experiment. You are not insightful, and your karma whoring question does not add anything of value to the discussion.

Re:Show me the receptors

[HEbGb]

You're right. I'd imagine the fault is not with the original paper, it's in the interpretation of this paper by the popular press. We see this again and again.

Re:There's something else

[jedidiah]

Well, that's just today's obesity which is an effect of the relatively recent demonization of fat.

People ran away from fat and there was sort of a nutritional backlash.

It also didn't help that the inherently unbalanced and politically motivated "new" food pyramid did not account for American eating habits.

Result: "remove fat, replace with refined carbs and no fiber"

Re:What about electricity?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a perfectly valid point. I consider our sense of electrical current a different sense, but really. Most people don't even recognize balance and proprioception. They have their arbitrary list of 5 and they're sticking to it.

Re:There's something else

[RManning]

As someone who has gone from obese to quite trim, I can tell you that in my experience obesity is caused by taking in more energy than you burn, period! I cut the amount of calories i take in, and I lose weight. I add calories, I gain. I was never a carb eater, just a "too much" eater. Of course, carbs are really high calorie, so generally cutting calories mean cutting carbs. But, I'm not convinced the type of food is nearly that important.

That's my long winded way of saying: citation needed. :)

Re:A special category of first post for science

[spun]

Actually, yes. Yes I do.

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[somersault]

I used to believe all that crap about low fat this low fat that, it's everywhere. I've been eating a lot of fatty foods since last September though and I'm still not fat. I do avoid high GI foods though unless I've just been doing heavy exercise. Ice cream is meant to be a good way to get fat because it combines both high sugar and high fat.

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[Korin43]

I'm surprised that anyone believes the whole "If you eat fat you'll get fat" thing. How you get fat is pretty simple: You need a certain amount of calories, and if you eat more than that you'll gain weight; if you eat less, you'll lose weight. It's true that some high-fat foods have more calories than low-fat foods (bacon vs salad), but it's not the fat percentage that's making you fat.

I guess it sort of makes sense to think that eating fat would make you until.. at least until you realize that eating salad doesn't turn you into a tree.