JNHA - The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging

, Volume 13, Issue 9, pp 769–775 | Cite as

Optimal preferred MSG concentration in potatoes, spinach and beef and their effect on intake in institutionalized elderly people

JNHA: Nutrition

Abstract

Background

Elderly people may benefit from sensory stimulation to increase food intake since anorexia of ageing is prevalent among them. An optimal MSG concentration may increase the palatability of foods but this depends on the food and chemosensory status of the taster. Currently, the results on taste enhancing to increase intake are inconsistent.

Objective

To find an optimal preferred MSG concentration in mashed potatoes, spinach and ground beef and to determine whether this concentration increases consumption of these foods among institutionalized elderly people.

Design

Single blind within subject cross-over study performed at the laboratory and in the residents’ own apartments.

Participants

33 elderly and 29 young people in the sensory study and 53 elderly people in the intake study.

Measurements

Pleasantness of the foods was rated of the foods each with 0, 0.5, 0.8, 1.3 and 2.0 g of MSG/100g. Intake was measured by weighing back leftovers of 2 meals with MSG (0.5% in mashed potatoes, 2% in spinach and ground meat) and without MSG.

Results

0.5% MSG (p<0.05) was preferred in mashed potatoes but no optimal preferred concentration was found for spinach and ground beef, possibly because of their complex taste. Intake was not different between the foods with and without MSG or the total meal (all p>0.68).

Conclusion

MSG (0.5% and 2%) does not guarantee a higher intake among elderly. The chemosensory heterogeneity of the elderly population requires more individual flavor enhancement to improve the dietary intake and sensory experience.

Key words

Elderly intake mono sodium glutamate optimal preferred concentration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Stevens JC, Cruz LA, Hoffman JM, Patterson MQ (1995) Taste sensitivity and aging, high incidence of decline revealed by repeated threshold measures. Chemical Senses, 20(4), 451–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ship JA, Weiffenbach JM (1993) Age, gender, medical treatment, and medication effects on smell identification. Journal of Gerontology, 48(1), M26–M32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schiffman SS (1993) Perception of taste and smell in elderly persons. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 33(1), 17–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stevens JC, Bartoshuk LM, Cain WS (1984) Chemical senses and aging: taste versus smell. Chemical Senses, 9(2), 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rolls BJ (1993) Appetite, hunger, and satiety in the elderly. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 33(1), 39–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolls BJ (1999) Do chemosensory changes influence food intake in the elderly? Physiology and Behavior, 66(2), 193–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schiffman SS, Warwick ZS (1988) Flavor enhancement of foods for the elderly can reverse anorexia. Neurobiology of Aging, 9(2), 24–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schiffman SS, Warwick ZS (1993) Effect of flavor enhancement of foods for the elderly on nutritional status: Food intake, biochemical indices, and anthropometric measures. Physiology and Behavior, 53(2), 395–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schiffman SS, Sattely-Miller EA, Zimmerman IA, Graham BG, Erickson RP (1994) Taste perception of monosodium glutamate in foods in young and elderly subjects. Physiology and Behavior, 56(2), 265–275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schiffman SS (1998a) Sensory enhancement of foods for the elderly with monosodium glutamate and flavors. Food Reviews International, 14, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prescott J, Young A (2002) Does information about MSG (monosodium glutamate) content influence consumer ratings of soups with and without added MSG? Appetite, 39(1), 25–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murphy C (1987) Flavor preference for monosodium glutamate and casein hydrolysate in young and elderly persons. Umami: A basic taste, pp139–151. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bellisle F, Monneuse MO, Chabert M, Larue-Achagiotis C, Lanteaume MT, Louis-Sylvestre J (1991) Monosodium glutamate as a palatability enhancer in the European diet. Physiology and Behavior, 49(5), 869–873.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellisle F, Dalix AM, Chapppuis AS, Rossi F, Fiquet P, Gaudin V, Assoun M, Slama G (1996) Monosodium glutamate affects mealtime food selection in diabetic patients. Appetite, 26(3), 267–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bellisle F, Tournier A, Louis-Sylvestre J (1989) Monosodium glutamate and the acquisition of food preferences in a European context. Food Quality and Preference, 1(3), 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamaguchi S, Takahashi C (1984) Hedonic functions of monosodium glutamate and four basic taste substances used at various concentration levels in single and complex systems. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 48(4), 1077–1081Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiffman SS, Miletic IDJ (1999a) Effect of taste and smell on secretion rate of salivary IgA in elderly and young persons. Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging, 3(3), 158–164.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roininen K, Lähteenmäki L, Tuorila H (1996) Effect of umami taste on pleasantness of low-salt soups during repeated testing. Physiology and Behavior, 60(3), 953–958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson HHF, Toors H, Ebbelink-Bosch IJ, Rijks SE (1999) Het nieuwe kookboek. Kosmos Uitgevers BV, Utrecht, Nederland.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schiffman SS, Graham BG, Suggs MS, et al. (1998b) Effect of psychotropic drugs on taste responses in young and elderly persons. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 855, 732–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schiffman SS, Zervakis J, Suggs MS, et al. (1999b) Effect of medications on taste: example of amitriptyline HCL. Physiology and Behavior, 66, 183–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berkhout AM, Cools HJ, Mulder JD (1989) Measurement or estimation of body length in older nursing home patients. Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie, 20(5), 211–214.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nevo (1997) Stichting Nederlands voedingsstoffenbestand. Dutch Nutrient Database 1997, The Hague, The Netherlands: Voorlichtingsbureau voor de voeding.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ (1996) Assessing the nutritional status of the elderly: the Mini Nutritional Assessment as part of the geriatric evaluation. Nutrition Review, 54(1 Pt 2), S59–65.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thomas-Danguin T, Rouby C, Sicard G, Vigouroux M, Farget V, Johanson A, Bengtzon A, Hall G, Ormel W, De Graaf C, Rousseau F, Dumont JP (2003) Development of the ETOC: a European test of olfactory capabilities. Rhinology, 41(3), 142–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mojet J, Christ-Hazelhof E, Heidema J (2005) Taste perception with age: pleasantness and its relationships with threshold sensitivity and supra-threshold intensity of five taste qualities. Food Quality and Preference, 16(5), 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prescott J (2004) Effects of added glutamate on liking for novel food flavors. Appetite, 42(2), 143–150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rogers PJ, Blundell JE (1990) Umami and appetite: effects of monosodium glutamate on hunger and food intake in human subjects. Physiology and Behavior, 48(6), 801–804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mojet J, Heidema J, Christ-Hazelhof E (2003) Taste perception with age: generic or specific losses in supra-threshold intensities of five taste qualities? Chemical Senses, 28(5), 397–413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Graaf C, Polet P, van Staveren WA (1994) Sensory perception and pleasantness of food flavors in elderly subjects. Journal of Gerontology Series A: American Biological Science and Medical Science, 49(3), 93–99.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Graaf C, van Staveren W, Burema J (1996) Psychophysical and psychohedonic functions of four common food flavors in elderly subjects. Chemical Senses, 21(3), 293–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Griep MI, Mets TF, Massart DL (2000) Effects of flavor amplification of Quorn and yoghurt on food preference and consumption in relation to age, BMI and odour perception. British Journal of Nutrition, 83(2), 105–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Jong N, De Graaf C, Van Staveren WA (1996) Effect of sucrose in breakfast items on pleasantness and food intake in the elderly. Physiology and Behavior, 60(6), 1453–1462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kozlowska K, Jeruszka M, Matuszewska I, Roszkowski W, Barylko-Pikielna N, Brzozowska A (2003) Hedonic tests in different locations as predictors of apple juice consumption at home in elderly and young subjects. Food Quality and Preference, 14(8), 653–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Murphy C, Withee J (1986) Age-related differences in the pleasantness of chemosensory stimuli. Psychology of Aging, 1(4), 312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zallen EM, Hooks LB, O’Brien K (1990) Salt taste preferences and perceptions of elderly and young adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 90(7), 947–950.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Koskinen S, Kalviainen N, Tuorila H (2003b) Flavor enhancement as a tool for increasing pleasantness and intake of a snack product among the elderly. Appetite, 41(1), 87–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koskinen S, Tuorila H (2005) Performance on an odor detection and identification test as a predictor of ortho- and retronasal odor intensity ratings in the young and elderly. Food Quality and Preference, 16(5), 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kremer S, Bult JHF, Mojet J, Kroeze J (2007) Compensation for age-associated chemosensory losses and its effect on the pleasantness of a custard dessert and a tomato drink. Appetite, 48(1), 96–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Forde CG, Delahunty CM (2004) Understanding the role cross-modal sensory interactions play in food acceptability in younger and older consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 15(2), 715–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kapur KK, Soman SD (1964). Masticatory performance and efficiency in dental wearers. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 14, 687–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Griep MI, Mets TF, Vogelaere P, Collys K, Laska M, Massart DL (1997) Odor perception in relation to age, general health, nutritional status, and dental status. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 25(3), 263–275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wayler, A.H., Perlmuter, L.C, Cardello, A.V., Jones, J.A, Chauncey, H.H. (1990). Effects of age and removable artificial dentition on taste. Special Care in Dentistry, 10(4), 107–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mathey MAM, Siebelink E, De Graaf C, van Staveren WA (2001) Flavor enhancement of food improves dietary intake and nutritional status of elderly nursing home residents. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, Biological sciences and Medical sciences 2001, 56(4), M200–M205.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Griep MI, Mets TF, Massart DL (1997) Different effects of flavour amplification of nutrient dense foods on preference and consumption in young and elderly subjects. Food Quality and Preference 8(2), 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Essed NH, van Staveren WA, Kok FJ, De Graaf C (2007) No effect of 16 weeks flavor enhancement on dietary intake and nutritional status of nursing home elderly. Appetite, 48(1), 29–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Koskinen S, Kalviainen N, Tuorila H (2003a) Perception of chemosensory stimuli and related responses to flavored yogurts in the young and elderly. Food Quality and Preference, 14(8), 623–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gilbert AN, Wysocki CJ (1987) National Geographic smell survey: The results. National Geographic, 172, 514–525.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rouby, Note1. Catherine Rouby, Neurosciences et Systemes Sensoriels, Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France. E-mail: rouby@olfac.univ-lyon1.frGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Serdi and Springer Verlag France 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Human NutritionWageningen UniversityWageningenthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Division of Human NutritionWageningen UniversityWageningenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations