Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low-Calorie Chocolates and Acceptability/Sensory Properties

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Chocolate in Health and Nutrition

Part of the book series: Nutrition and Health ((NH,volume 7))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Parpinello GP, Versari A, Castellari M, et al. Stevioside as a replacement of sucrose in peach race: sensory evaluation. J Sens Stud. 2001;16(5):471–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yanovski S. Sugar and fat: cravings and aversions. J Nutr. 2003;133(3):835S–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Macdiarmid JI, Vail A, Cade JE, et al. The sugar-fat relationship revisited: differences in consumption between men and women of varying BMI. Int J Obes. 1998;22(11):1053–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Matthiessen J, Fagt S, Biltoft-Jensen A, et al. Size makes a difference. Publ Health Nutr. 2003;6(1):65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lambert JP. Nutrition and health aspects of chocolate. In: Beckett ST, editor. Industrial chocolate manufacture and use. London: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. p. 623–35.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cardello H, Da Silva M, Damasio MH. Measurement of the relative sweetness of stevia extract, aspartame and cyclamate/saccharin blend as compared to sucrose at different concentrations. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1999;54(2):119–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein LH, Caggiula AR, Rodefer JS, et al. The effects of calories and taste on habituation of the human salivary response. Addict Behav. 1993;18(2):179–85. Mar-Apr.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Geiselman PJ, Smith CF, Williamson DA, et al. Perception of sweetness intensity determines women’s hedonic and other perceptual responsiveness to chocolate food. Appetite. 1998;31(1):37–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Guinard JX, Mazzucchelli R. Effects of sugar and fat on the sensory properties of milk chocolate: descriptive analysis and instrumental measurements. J Sci Food Agric. 1999;79(11):1331–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoskin JC. Sensory properties of chocolate and their development. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;60(6):S1068–70.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Higginbotham JD. Recent developments in non-nutritive sweeteners. In: Grenby TH, Parker KJ, Lindley MG, editors. Progress in sweeteners. London: Applied Science Publishers; 1983. p. 119–55.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jenner MR. Sucralose: unveiling its properties and applications. In: Grenby TH, editor. Progress in sweeteners. London: Elsevier Applied Science; 1989. p. 121–41.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Krüger C. Sugar and bulk sweeteners. In: Beckett ST, editor. Industrial chocolate manufacture and use. London: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. p. 48–75.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Liebrand J, Smiles R. Polydextrose for reduced calorie confections. Manuf Confect. 1981;61(11):35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Krüger CH. Sugar. In: Beckett TH, editor. Industrial chocolate manufacture and use. London: Black Academic & Professional; 1994. p. 25–42.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Afoakwa EO, Paterson A, Fowler M. Factors influencing rheological and textural qualities in chocolate - a review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2007;18(6):290–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cidell JL, Alberts HC. Constructing quality: the multinational histories of chocolate. Geoforum. 2006;37(6):999–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ziegler GR, Mongia G, Hollender R. The role of particle size distribution of suspended solids in defining the sensory properties of milk chocolate. Int J Food Prop. 2001;4(2):353–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lawless HT, Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food – principles and practices. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers Inc; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lee III WE. Single-point versus time-intensity sensory measurements: an informational entropy analysis1. J Sens Stud. 1989;4(1):19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clark CC, Lawless HT. Limiting response alternatives in time-intensity scaling - an examination of the halo-dumping effect. Chem Senses. 1994;19(6):583–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ayya N, Lawless HT. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of high-intensity sweeteners and sweetener mixtures. Chem Senses. 1992;17(3):245–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Calviño A, Garrido D, García M. Potency of sweetness of aspartame, d-tryptophan and thaumatin evaluated by single value and time-intensity measurements. J Sens Stud. 2000;15(1):47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. De Melo LLMM, Bolini HMA, Efraim P. Equisweet milk chocolates with intense sweeteners using time-intensity method. J Food Qual. 2007;30(6):1056–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. San Juan EM, Edra EV, Fadrigalan EN. Consumer-based optimization of peanut-chocolate bar using response surface methodology. J Food Process Pres. 2005;29(3-4):208–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dos A, Ayhan Z, Sumnu G. Effects of different factors on sensory attributes, overall acceptance and preference of Rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) tea. J Sens Stud. 2005;20(3):228–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Thompson JL, Drake MA, Lopetcharat K, et al. Preference mapping of commercial chocolate milks. J Food Sci. 2004;69(9):S406–13. Nov-Dec.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Luckow T, Delahunty C. Consumer acceptance of orange juice containing functional ingredients. Food Res Int. 2004;37(8):805–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhao LQ, Tepper BJ. Perception and acceptance of selected high-intensity sweeteners and blends in model soft drinks by propylthiouracil (PROP) non-tasters and super-tasters. Food Qual Prefer. 2007;18(3):531–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Melo LLMM, Bolini HMA, Efraim P. Sensory profile, acceptability, and their relationship for diabetic/reduced calorie chocolates. Food Qual Prefer. 2009;20(2):138–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jones SA. Issues in fat replacement. In: Roller S, Jones SA, editors. Handbook of fat replacers. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1996. p. 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Prindiville EA, Marshall RT, Heymann H. Effect of milk fat, cocoa butter, and whey protein fat replacers on the sensory properties of lowfat and nonfat chocolate ice cream. J Dairy Sci. 2000;83(10):2216–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Grabitske HA, Slavin JL. Gastrointestinal effects of low-digestible carbohydrates. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009;49(4):327–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Marteau P, Flourie B. Tolerance to low-digestible carbohydrates: symptomatology and methods. Br J Nutr. 2001;85(1):S17–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bolenz S, Amtsberg K, Schape R. The broader usage of sugars and fillers in milk chocolate made possible by the new EC cocoa directive. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2006;41(1):45–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Farzanmehr H, Abbasi S. Effects of inulin and bulking agents on some physicochemical, textural and sensory properties of milk chocolate. J Texture Stud. 2009;40(5):536–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Finney M, Smullen J, Foster HA, et al. Effects of low doses of lactitol on faecal microflora, pH, short chain fatty acids and gastrointestinal symptomology. Eur J Nutr. 2007;46(6):307–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Stubenitsky K, Aaron JI, Catt SL, et al. Effect of information and extended use on the acceptance of reduced-fat products. Food Qual Prefer. 1999;10(4–5):367–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shah AB, Jones GP, Vasiljevic T. Sucrose-free chocolate sweetened with Stevia rebaudiana extract and containing different bulking agents - effects on physicochemical and sensory properties. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2010;45(7):1426–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Prindiville EA, Marshall RT, Heymann H. Effect of milk fat on the sensory properties of chocolate ice cream. J Dairy Sci. 1999;82(7):1425–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Abbasi S, Farzanmehr H. Optimization of the formulation of prebiotic milk chocolate based on rheological properties. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2009;47(4):396–403.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bolenz S, Thiessenhusen T, Schape R. Influence of milk components on properties and consumer acceptance of milk chocolate. Eur Food Res Technol. 2003;216(1):28–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Devereux HM, Jones GP, McCormack L, et al. Consumer acceptability of low fat foods containing inulin and oligofructose. J Food Sci. 2003;68(5):1850–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Geel L, Kinnear M, de Kock HL. Relating consumer preferences to sensory attributes of instant coffee. Food Qual Prefer. 2005;16(3):237–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT. Sensory evaluation techniques. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Moskowitz H, Gofman A, Beckley J. Using high-level consumer-research methods to create a tool-driven guidebook and database for product development and marketing. J Sens Stud. 2006;21(1):54–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Armbrister WL, Setser CS. Sensory and physical-properties of chocolate chip cookies made with vegetable shortening or fat replacers at 50 and 75-percent-levels. Cereal Chem. 1994;71(4):344–51.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Belscak-Cvitanovic A, Benkovic M, Komes D, et al. Physical properties and bioactive constituents of powdered mixtures and drinks prepared with cocoa and various sweeteners. J Agric Food Chem. 2010;58(12):7187–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Ares G, Barreiro C, Deliza R, et al. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. J Sens Stud. 2010;25:67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Melo LLMM, Bolini HMA, Efraim P. Storage time study of sugar-free and reduced calorie milk chocolates. J Food Qual. 2009;32(5):577–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ali A, Selamat J, Man YBC, et al. Effect of storage temperature on texture, polymorphic structure, bloom formation and sensory attributes of filled dark chocolate. Food Chem. 2001;72(4):491–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Andrae-Nightingale LM, Lee SY, Engeseth NJ. Textural changes in chocolate characterized by instrumental and sensory techniques. J Texture Stud. 2009;40(4):427–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Popov-Raljic JV, Lalicic-Petronijevic JG. Sensory properties and color measurements of dietary chocolates with different compositions during storage for up to 360 days. Sensors. 2009;9(3):1996–2016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cardello AV, Schutz HG, Lesher LL. Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: a conjoint analytic study. Innov Food Sci Emerg Tech. 2007;8(1):73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Enneking U, Neumann C, Henneberg S. How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision. Food Qual Prefer. 2007;18(1):133–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Haddad Y, Haddad J, Olabi A, et al. Mapping determinants of purchase intent of concentrated yogurt (Labneh) by conjoint analysis. Food Qual Prefer. 2007;18(5):795–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Paulus KO, Aarts P, Moskowitz HR, et al. Purchasing habits and sensory preferences for cola consumers. Fruit Process. 2003;13(6):409–15.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Cheng HW, Clarke AD, Heymann H. Influence of selected marketing factors on consumer response to restructured beef steaks: a conjoint analysis. J Sens Stud. 1990;4(3):165–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Moskowitz H, Silcher M, Beckley J, et al. Sensory benefits, emotions and usage patterns for olives: using Internet-based conjoint analysis and segmentation to understand patterns of response. Food Qual Prefer. 2005;16(4):369–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Beckley J, Ashman H, Maier A, et al. What features drive rated burger craveability at the concept level? J Sens Stud. 2004;19(1):27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kupiec B, Revell B. Measuring consumer quality judgements. Br Food J. 2001;103(1):7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lee CM, Lee SY. Consumer insights on healthy breakfast cereal - a focus group research. J Sens Stud. 2007;22(4):417–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Gofman A. Emergent scenarios, synergies and suppressions uncovered within conjoint analysis. J Sens Stud. 2006;21(4):373–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Melo L, Childs JL, Drake M, et al. Expectations and acceptability of diabetic and reduced-calorie milk chocolates among nondiabetics and diabetics in the USA. J Sens Stud. 2010;25:133–52.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kahkonen P, Tuorila H. Consumer responses to reduced and regular fat content in different products: effects of gender, involvement and health concern. Food Qual Prefer. 1999;10(2):83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemical Engineering, School of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149 - Bloco E - Sala E203 - Centro de Tecnologia, Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, CEP 21941-909, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Lauro Melo Ph.D.

  2. Department of Food and Nutrition, School of Food Engineering, State University of Campinas, CP 6121, Campinas, SP, 13083-862, Brazil

    Helena Maria André Bolini Ph.D.

  3. Department of Food Technology, School of Food Engineering, State University of Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato, nº 80, Cidade Universitária, Campinas, SP, CEP 13035-388, Brazil

    Priscilla Efraim Ph.D. in Food Technology

Authors
  1. Lauro Melo Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helena Maria André Bolini Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Priscilla Efraim Ph.D. in Food Technology
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauro Melo Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Health Sciences Center, Department of Health Promotion Sciences, University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin Ave. 1295, Tucson, 85724-5155, Arizona, USA

    Ronald Ross Watson

  2. Dept. Nutrition & Dietetics, King's College, Stamford St. 150, London, SE1 9NH, United Kingdom

    Victor R. Preedy

  3. Division of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman, University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin Avenue, Tucson, 85724, Arizona, USA

    Sherma Zibadi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Melo, L., Bolini, H.M.A., Efraim, P. (2013). Low-Calorie Chocolates and Acceptability/Sensory Properties. In: Watson, R., Preedy, V., Zibadi, S. (eds) Chocolate in Health and Nutrition. Nutrition and Health, vol 7. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-803-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-803-0_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-802-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-803-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation