(P06-031-25) Subjective Palatability Was Higher in an Unprocessed Breakfast Meal Than in a Matched Ultra-Processed Meal

Objectives: To examine differences in subjective palatability ratings between three meals with similar foods, flavor profile, and texture but differing in processing level and nutritional quality (NQ).

Methods: In a randomized crossover trial 40 adults had three lab visits. At visit one study staff collected demographic information and anthropometric measures. At all visits subjects ate one of three meals in random order: Meal 1) non-ultra-processed (UPF) high NQ, Meal 2) UPF high NQ, Meal 3) UPF low NQ. Meals were similar foods and matched for energy, macronutrients, and flavor profile. Subjects sat in a quiet room and ate to comfortable satiety. Subjective palatability was assessed using a visual analog scale given immediately following the meal. Subjective palatability measures included pleasant, tasty, texture, sweet, and salty. Composite hedonic score (CHS) was calculated by averaging ratings for pleasant, tasty, and texture. Repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was used to test for differences in CHS and individual palatability measures between meals at p< 0.05.

Results: Significant differences were observed for pleasant, tasty, texture, CHS, and sweet. Pleasant was significantly higher for Meal 1 (M= 69.5 mm ± 22.7) than Meal 2 (M=56.6 mm ±25.0; F=5.92, p< 0.05) and Meal 3 (M=45.7 mm <± 23.8; F=19.95, p< 0.01). Tasty was rated higher for Meal 1 (M=65.8 mm ± 24.6) than Meal 3 (M=45.2 mm ± 22.0; F=14.91, p< 0.01). Texture was also higher for Meal 1 (M=60.4 mm ± 25.6) than meal 3 (M=45.4 mm ± 23.6; F=7.19, p< 0.05). CHS was significantly different only between Meals 1 (M=65.3 mm ± 22.9) and 3 (M=45.4 mm ± 20.9; F=7.85, p< 0.01), though a non-significant decrease in CHS from Meal 1 to Meal 3 was observed. Sweetness was significantly different between Meals 1 and 3 (F=17.02, p< 0.01) and Meals 2 and 3 (F=19.85, p< 0.01) but not Meals 1 and 2, where subjects reported higher levels of sweetness for Meal 3 (75.8 mm ± 19.9) compared to Meal 1 (M=53.2 mm ± 27.2) and Meal 2 (51.4 mm ± 25.6).

Conclusions: Participants rated the UPF low NQ meal as less palatable than the non-UPF high NQ meal, and rated it significantly sweeter than the other two meals. Given that this meal would be defined as hyper-palatable using objective criteria, more research is needed to understand differences in subjective palatability in foods differing by processing level.

Funding Sources: Funded by a USDA NIFA grant