am j clin nutr 1986 brown 414 8

8/13/2019 Am J Clin Nutr 1986 Brown 414 8

1/5

41 4

T a s te ch an g e s d u rin g p re g n an cy 1 3Ju d ith E row n M P H P hD a nd R a m se s T om a M P H P h D

A B ST R A C T The ab ility o f p re gn an t women to d isc rim in ate am ong d iffe ren t con cen tra tions ofsalt an d suc ro se so lu tions, and the ir preference fo r the so lu tion s, w ere assessed to de te rm ine if changesin the sense of tas te o cc ur during pregnancy . R es ul ts o f t es ts w it h salt so lu tion s sh ow ed th a t pregnan tw o m en were sign ifican tly less ab le to co rrectly iden tify concen tra tio n d iffe rences p


2/5

p ar ticu la r in terest in pregnancy . S a lt is o f in -tere st b ecau se of th e increased requ irem en t forsod ium tha t accom pan ie s p regn an cy 18, 2 9),an d because o f th e long stand in g bu t q ues-t ionable practice o f r es tr ic ti ng salt in tak e du r-ing pregnancy . C hanges in the ta ste o f sucrosecould possibly correspond to the increasedneed for energy dur ing p regn an cy . T h is stu dyw as und er tak en to a sse ss sa lt an d sucro se so -lu tion ta ste a cu ity , and sim p le taste so lu tionpre feren ce am ong a g roup o f pregnant wom e n .

Resul tsR esu lts o f th e tests on d iscr im ina ting so lu -

tions by concentration are shown in Table 1 .Pregnan t w om en w ere s ign ifican tly le ss lik elyto rank the salt solutions in the correct orderof concentration than were the nonpregnantsubjects x 8.7, df = 1 , p < 0.005). Tab l e2 show s the m ola r con cen tration s of salt andsucrose solutions identified as most preferredby women in each group. Selection of mostpreferred salt solutions differed between preg-nan t and n onpregnan t sub jec ts. x = 1 3.6 , d f= 3, p = 0.004). Th e m ean concen tra tion ofsalt solutions most preferred by pregnantw om en w as sign ifican tly h igher than th e meanconcentration for nonpregnant women (t= 3.3, p = 0.004). The sub grou p of 10 p reg-nan t w om en tha t w ere a lso te sted after p reg-nancy exhibited the same preference changefo r salt so lu tion s as w a s found be tw een thep regn an t and the nonpregnant subjects no tshow n ). T h e m ean concen tration o f salt so-lutions most preferred by postpartum womendropped to 0.036 0.46 from a mean of 0.058 0 .3 9 du rin g pregnan cy (t = 2.55, p = 0 .03) .D ifferences in sucro se so lu tion pre feren ce re -su lts b e tw een pregnan t an d n onp regn an tw om en and between th e 10 sub jec ts testedd ur ing and after p regn ancy , w ere no t s ign ifi-cant .

TASTE AND PREGNANCY 41 5

{14 9 } = 8.7,df= l,p< 0.005.

M ethodsPregnant and nonpregnant w omen betw een th e ages of

20 to 35 were recruited for the study by a flyer sent to allacademic departments w ithin the School of Publ ic H eal th.E nr ol lm ent ended wh en 2 3 pregnant, a nd 2 3 n on pr eg na ntw om en a greed to par tic ipa te .

Taste tests were conducted in a comfortable room freef rom noise and distraction. E ach subject w as p re se nte dwith a tray holding cups with a se t o f sucrose and saltso lu tion s , an d d istilled w ater . R oom tem pera ture taste so -lu tion s w ere p resen ted on the tray in ran dom ord er, w ithth e set o f sucrose so lu t io n s iden tified as sucrose, an d theset of salt so lu tion s id en t ified as salt. Subjects w ere g ivena form on w h ich to record th e re su lts o f rank ing each seto fso lu tion s from weakest to stron ges t, a nd to ind ica te thesucrose and salt so lu t io n th ey most preferred. A large cu po f d ist il l ed w ater , and an em pty cup , w ere prov id ed onthe tray an d sub jec ts w ere instructed to s ip an d sp it thetaste so lu tion s. S u b jec ts w ere asked to begin th e t aste t estb y r in sing th e ir m on ths w ith d is tilled w a ter, a nd to r in seout their mouths after testing each solution. T hey werein stru c ted to repeat th e ta stin g process if needed . A ll sub -jects com pl eted the taste tests w ithin 15 mm.

Taste solutions w ere m ad e from d istilled w ater an d re -ag ent g rad e sucrose and sodium chloride. Concentrationsemployed f o r t h e salt s o l u t i o ns we r e 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 7 50 .1 , an d 0 .2 M . S ucrose so lu t io n s con sisted o f 0 .0 1 , 0 .025 ,0 05 0 .1 , an d 0 .25 M . T h e num b er o f s o l u t i o n s and thec o n c e n t r a t i o n s used we r e s i mi l a r t o those e mp l oy e d b yDesor e t a l 6) in taste preferences studies with adults.D ifferences in the proportionate occurrence o f e v e nt s b e -t w e e n groups w ere a sses sed u s in g C hi square an aly sis , an ddiffer en ces in g roup m eans b y Stud ents t test 30 ). Fo rthe Students t tests, me a n s and standard deviations ofm ost pref erred m ol ar co ncentrati on s we r e cal cul ated f romlog concentrations exponentiated. I nformation on socio-demographic and health statuses w as collected by a pre-tested questionnaire.W omen enrolled in the study w ere all betw een the agesof 23 to 34, half were pregnant and all w ere w h ite . M osto f the p regnan t subjects 65 ) w ere in the ir t hi rd t rimesterof pregnancy, 22 were in their second, a n d 1 3 i n t he i rfirst tri mester. O ne p regna nt w om an had been placed ona reduced sodi um d iet an d one nonpregnant womansmoked cigarettes. T wo subj ects coul d not identify mostpreferred sol uti ons duri ng the t ast e t ests. A ll subj ects re-ported that they were in good health and n o t taking med-ications. Ten of the 23 pregnant w omen enrolled w e r ea va ilab le fo r retesting 5 t o 7 mo postpartum.

D iscussionPregnancy related changes in taste and food

preferences have been th e subjects o f a num bero f reports. I n 1691, Christion of Frankfort de-

TABLE 1N um ber o f p regnan t an d nonp reg nan t su b jec ts co rrec tlyand inco rrec tly ran kin g salt and sucrose s o l u t i o n s b yconcen tra t ion s

R e s u l t s of r a n k i n gP r e g n a n ts u b j e c t s

N o n p r e g n a n ts u b j e c t s

( k) (Salt s o l u t i o n s

CorrectIncorrect 1 211 2 12S u c r o s e s o l u t i o ns

CorrectIncorrect 1 58 2 5


3/5

41 6 B R OW N A N D T O M ATA B LE 2M olarity o f sucrose and salt s ol u t i o ns identified as m ostpreferred by pregnant and no npre gnant subje cts

S o lu tio n id e ntifie d a s m o st p re fe rre dN o n p r e g n a n t

M o la r c o n ix n ira tio n P re g n a n t s u b je c ts s u b je c ts n

Salt solutions0.025 3t 150 .05 40 .075 20.1 40 .2 2

overall SD ofm o st p re fe rre dsolution 0 .061 O .55t 0.035 0 .56

Sucrose s ol u t i o ns0 .01 3 50.025 2 60.05 9 40 .1 5 30.25 4 4

overall SD ofmost preferredso lutio n 0 .0 59 0.95 0 .042 1.11 { 1 4 9 }OTE: Th e standard dev iations are large because

means w ere calculated fro m lo g con cen tratio ns exp on en -tiated.

tx2 13 .6 ,df= 3 ,p= 0 .0 04 . t = 3.3, df = 2 2 p = 0 .004 .

scribed the case of a pregnant w om en w hoconsum ed, by actual count, over 1 ,4 00 salte dherrings during her pregnancy 4). Schm idt31) described the case of a pregnant w om anw ho experienced an alm ost com plete lo ss o ftaste and sm ell. A lthou gh these se nse s returnedto n orm al function after delivery, the intriguestim ulated by the case led S chm idt to studytaste ac uity during pregnancy. A m ong 28pregnant and an equal num ber of nonpregnantw om en, the pregnant w om en w ere found tohave substantially incre ase d thresho lds for salt,sour, b itter, an d s w e e t solutions 31). T hethresho ld for salt solution s increased by thelargest am ount w hile that for sw ee t incre ase dthe le ast. In a study of s im ilar de s ign, H ansenand L anger 32) also found that taste thresh-olds for these four basic tastes w ere increaseddu ring pregnancy. T he au thors of both studiessuggested that preg nancy crav ings co uld per-haps be due to reduced sensitivity to tastequalities.

T he developm ent of salt appetite duringpregnancy in rats 18, 20) and rabbits 4) ha s

b ee n re po rte d. G iven access, the se anim als w illvoluntarily consum e m ore salt than nonpreg-nant anim als, and their intakes ofsalt w ill ex-ceed their calculated need for sodium 4, 18).Contreas and Frank 33) have reported thatneural chorda tym pani) responses to salt so -lutions are reduced in sodium deficient rats.Presum ably, the reduced neural response re-sults in a dim inished salt taste (33 ) . C oncen-tratio ns o fsalt that w ere avers ive in the sodiumsufficient state m ay not be perceived as un-desirable du rin g sodiu m d eficiency 24).

T he consequences of sodium deficiencyduring pregnancy in rats are dram atic. R atssubjected to sodium restriction develop hy-povolem ia, hyponatrem ia, hyperkalem ia, al-tered renin-aldosterone m echanism s for so-dium co nse rvatio n (1 7 , 18 ), ano re x ia, and de -liver sm aller litters con tain in g few e r live b irth sthan nondeficient anim als (1 9). H ypo natre m iaassoc iated w ith low sodium diets has been re -ported to develop in hum an pregnancy 34,35 R esults of these, and other studies m di-cating that routine sodium restriction m ay ex-acerbate the co nditio n it is intended to prev ent(1 7 , 3 4 , 36 -4 1 ) has le d to the ge neral adv ic ethat pregnant w om en be allow ed to consum esalt to taste 40, 42). A lthough speculative, itis p lau sib le th at ch an ges in s al t s en si ti vi ty andpreference are related to the increased needfor sodium in hum an pregnancy.

It has been sug gested that differences inpreference for sucrose m ay be related to caloricneed 6). H ow ever, such a relationship has notbee n c learly established. B ruera et al 1 1) cx-am ined g luc ose thre sho lds in m alnourishedcan cer patien ts and foun d that th e thresh old sw ere higher in the patients than in the controlgroup. In a study of taste solution preferen ceam ong 9 to 15 year old su bjects and adu lts,D e s o r et al 6) fou nd that the youths preferredstronger concentrations of sucrose than didadults. G rinker et al 43) w ere unable to iden-tify chan ges in in ten sity and p leasan tness rat-ings of sw eet tasting foods between norm alw eight and overw eight subjects. A lthough itappears that hum ans are brought into thew orld w ith an innate preference for sucrose4 4), it is n ot clear if th is p referen ce m otivatesfood or sucrose consum p tion in response toenergy deficits.

R ichter and B arelare 20) exam ined tastep referen ce for su crose an d salt in p regn an t rats.


4/5

TA S TE A N D PREGN A N C Y 417I n agr eement with the results of this r esearch,rats did no t sho w an inc re ase d prefe rence forsucr ose, but did exhibit an incr eased prefer -ence for salt. Dippel and E lias 45 , however ,noted a change in sucr ose pr efer ence of pr eg-nant women. I n contr ast to the results reportedher e, pr egnant women in their study prefer r edw e ak er c on ce ntra ti on s ofsucro se so lution thandi d oral contr aceptive user s and nonpr egnantwomen. Sucr ose prefer ence ratings wer e notinfluenced by trim es ter o f preg nancy . M olarc o nc entrations o fthre e o fthe fo ur suc rose so -lutions employed by D ippel and E lias weresubstantially str onger than those used in thecurrent study. Few women indicated a pref-er ence for the tw o stro ngest so lutions o ffered0.6 and 1 .2 M 44 .

ConclusionsR esults ofthis r esear ch showed power ful ef-

fects of pr egnancy on taste for salt solutions.Pregnant women were less a bl e t o d iscr im in at eamong differ ent concentr ations of salt solu-tion, and pr efer red str onger salt solutions thandid nonpr egnant women. A mong a subset ofwomen tested dur ing and after pregnancy, thepr efer ence for str on ger salt sol ut ion s i den ti fi edduring preg nanc y disappeared a ft er d el iv er y .T he str engths of the effects observed for saltsolutions suggest that tests using larger num-ber s of women would r eveal sim ilar r esults.Weak effects of pr egnancy on sucr ose solutionsensitivity and pr efer ence however , may beidentified in studies that utilize a lar ge num berof pr egnant women. T he data suggest thatphysiological mechanisms for increasingsodium intake may develop dur ing preg-nancy.

The autho rs thank D r Zata V ickers for her thoroug hreview o f the manuscript and M s Kathlee n M orrisey , re -s ea rc h a ss is ta nt, f or he r c are fu l wo r k o n t he project.

References1. Taggert N Foo d habits in pregnancy . Proc N utr S oc196 l20:35-40 .

2 L i t t l e RE Schultz F A, M and ell W Drinking duringpre gnanc y. J S tudie s o n A l c oh o l 1 9 7 6 ; 3 7 : 3 7 5 9

3. H ook E B. D ie tary c rav ing s and avers ions duringpregnancy. Am J C li n N utr l 97 8;3 l:l 35 5- 62 .

4 . D enton D A . The hunger for salt. A n anthropological,physiological and medical a na ly s is . B e rl in :S p ri ng e r-V erl ag , 1 98 2:4 27 -3 5.

5 . Schiffm an 55 , H ornack K , R eilly D . Increased tastethresholds o f am ino acids w ith ag e . A m J C lin N utrl9 79 ;3 2: 1 62 2-7 .

6. D e s o r J, G reen LS , M aller 0 . Preferences f or sw eetan d s alty in 9 t o 15 y ear o ld and adu lt hu man s. Sciencel975;l90:686-7.7 . M os ko w itz H W , K um araiah V , S harm a K N , JacobsH L, S harm a S D . Cross-cultural differences in sim pletaste pre fe re nc es. S cie nc e l975;190:1217-8.

8. Schiffm an SS. T aste and smell in disease F ir st of tw oparts ). N Eng l J M e d l 98 3;3 08 :1 27 5- 9.

9. Solomons N W . Z inc nutr ition and taste acuity in pa-tients with c ys ti c f ib ro si s. Nutr Re s 1 9 8 l ;l :l 3 - 2 4 .

10. G allagher P. T weedle D E . T as te thre sho ld and ac -ceptability of commercial diets in cancer patients.JPEN l98 3;7 :3 6 1-3 .

I 1 . Br uer a E , Carraro 5, R oca E, C edaro L, C hac { 243 } n .A ss oc iatio n be tw ee n m alnutr it ion and calor ic intak e,e me sis , phy cho lo gic al de pre ss io n, g luc os e taste , an dtu mor m ass. C anc er T re at R ep l9 84 ;6 8:8 73 -6 .

12 . H ardy SL, B rennand C P, W yse B W . Taste thresho ldso f indiv iduals w ith diabetes m elli tus and o f c ontro lsubjec ts . J A m D iet A s s o c 1 9 8 1 ; 7 9 :2 8 6 - 9 .13. Buzina R , Jusic M , Sapunar J, M ilanovic N . Z incnutrition and tas te acuity in schoo l children with im -paired grow th. A m J C lin N utr 1 98 0;3 3:2 26 2-7 .

14. G reen R F. Subclinical pellagr a and idiopathic hypo-geus ia.JA MA l97 l2 l8 :l30 3.

15 . Y ensen R . S om e factors affec ting taste sen sit ivity inm an: II. D eple tion of body salt. J Exp Phycho ll 95 9;l 1 :2 30 -8 .

16. C ontr er as R i, H atton G l. G ustator y adaptation as anexplanation for die tary -induced sodium appetite .Ph y s i o l B e ha v l 9 7 5 ; l 5 : 5 6 9 7 6

17 . Pike R L, Gursky D S . Further ev idence of de le teriouse ff ec ts p ro du ce d by s odi um restriction during preg-nancy. A m J C lin N utr 1970;23:883-9.

18. Pike R L, Y ao C . I ncr eased sodium chlor ide appetited u r i n g p r e g n a n c y i n t h e r a t J Nu t r 1 9 7 l ; l Ol : 1 6 976.19. Bur sey R G, W atson M L . T he effect ofsodium r estr ic-tio n during g es tatio n o n oflpring brain de ve lo pm entin rats. A m J Clin N u t r l 98 3; 37 :4 3- 5l .

20 . R ichter C P, B are lare B . N utritional requirem ents o fpre gn an t an d l ac tatin g rats s tudied by the self-selectionm e th od . E nd oc ri no lo gy l 938; 23: 15- 24.

2 1. R ic hte r CP . Increased salt appetite i n adrenalecto-mized rats . A m J Clin N utr l93 6;l 15 :151 -61 .

22 . S chulkin A U , Le ibm an D , Ehrm an RN , N o rto n N W ,Te rne s JW . Salt hunge r in the rhe sus m onke y. BehavN eu ro sc i l9 84 ;9 8:7 53 -6 .

2 3 Va nd e r AJ Co n t r o l o f renin release . Physio l Re vl967;47:359-64 .

2 4 B eaucham p GK , B ertino M , Mo r a n M S odium reg-u l a t i o n : s en so ry as pe cts . J Am Di e t A s s o c l982;80:40-5 .

25 . W ilkins L, Richter CP. A g r ea t craving f o r salt by ac hild w ith cortico-adrenal insuffic ie nc y. JA MA 194 0;1 1 4 : 8 6 6

26 . M cC ance R A . Experim ental sodium c hlo ride de fi-c iency in m an. Proc R So c Londo n Ser B l9 36;l 19 :245-68 .

27 . B ertino M , B eauc ham p GK , R iskey D R. E ng el manK. Taste perception in t hre e i nd iv i du al s o n a l o w s odium diet. Appetite 1 9 8 l 2 :6 7 -7 3 .


5/5

41 8 BROW N AND TOMA28. Stinebaugh Bi, V asquez M I, Schloeder FX . T astethresholds for sal t i n f asti ng patients. Am J Clin Nutr

1 9 7 5 ; 2 8 : 8 14-7.29. Hytten FE , Leitch I. T he phy sio logy of hum an preg-

nancy. O xf ord:B lackw el l Sci enti fi c Publishers, 1971 :418-20.30. R emington RD . Schork M A . Statistics with applica-ti ons to the bi ol ogi cal and heal th sci ences. E ngl ew oodCliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall, 1970 :161 -4 , 2 29 -4 4.

3 1 . Schm id t H . T ran sien t loss of the sense o f sm e ll andta s te d ur in g p reg nan cy . K lin W ochen sch r l92 5 ;4 :1967-8.

3 2 . H ansen R , Langer W . Uber geschmacksver {228}nderun-gen in derschwangerschaft. K li n W ochenschr l 935 ;14 :1173 -7 .

33 . Contreras Ri, Frank M . Sodium deprivation altersneural r esponses to gust ator y st imul i. J Gen Physioll979;73:569-94.34. de A lvarez R , Smith EK . The influence of dietary

sodium u p t a k e o n water , electrolyte and n itrogen b a l-ance i n pregnancy toxaemia. A metabolic study. A mJ O bste t G yn eco l l95 6;72 :562 -8 8.35. Palomaki JF, L indheimer M D. Sodium depletionsimulating deterioration in a tox em ic pregnancy. NEngi J M e d l 97 02 82 :8 8- 9.

36. Robinson M . Salt in pregnancy. Lancet l958;l:178-81.

37. L indheimer M D , K atz A l. S od ium and diuretics inpregnancy. N EngI J M e d 1 97 32 88 :8 91 -4 .38 . R ober tson ER . W ater m etabo lism . C lin O b ste t G y -

necol 1 975 ;2 :4 3 1-4 0.39. C hesley L C. Disorders of the k idney , fluids and el ec-trol ytes. I n: A ssal i N , ed. Pathop hy si ol ogy of gesta-tional disorders, V 1 . N ew Y ork : A cad em ic P ress,1972 :355 -477 .40. L indheimer M D, K atz A l. Renal changes duringpregnancy. T heir relevance to volume homeostosis.G in O bstet C ynecol l975;2:345-64.

41. Pike RL , Smiciklas HA . A reappraisal of sodium re-striction during pregnancy. I nt J Gynaec O bstetl97 2;10 : 1 -8 .

4 2 . N o lten W E , E h rlich EN . S od ium and m in era lo -corticoids in n or ma l p re gn an cy . K id I nt l 98 0 ;I 8: 16 2-72.

43. G ri nker J, Hirsch J, Smith D . Taste sensitivity andsusceptibility to external influences in obese an d n or -mal weigh t subjec ts. J Personality and Soc ial Psycholl972 ;22 :320 -5 .

4 4 Beauchaznp GK . T he development of t a s t e i n i n f a n c yI n : Bond JT , Filer U , Leveille GA , Thompson A ,W eil W B, eds. I nfant and early childhood feeding.N ew Y ork : A cadem ic Press, 198 1:4 13- 26.45. D ippel RL , Elias J W Preferences f or sweet in rela-ti onshi p to use of oral contraceptives and pregnancy.H orm ones and B ehavi or l 98 0;l 4:l -6.

am j clin nutr 1986 brown 414 8

Documents