BABY'S FIRST CHOICES: New research suggests that if infants are exposed to more complex and healthful-tasting flavors, they might be more inclined to eat better later in life.
Image: iStockphoto/Kobyakov
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Our diets are unhealthy, that much is clear. Now, an increasing number of scientists and physicians wonder if our propensity for unhealthy, obesity-inducing eating might be tied to the food choices made during our first weeks and months of life. Indeed, the latest research indicates that what we learn to like as infants paves the way for what we eat as adults. If true, we might be able to tackle the obesity epidemic in a new and more promising way, one that starts with the very first spoonful.
Today, unfortunately, most of those early lovin' spoonfuls contain more sugar and salt than is nutritionally wise. A recent study in the Journal of Public Health found that 53 percent of processed baby and toddler foods lining supermarket shelves (at least in Canada) have an excessive number of calories from simple sugars, and 12 percent of them have too much sodium. The authors, noting how overindulgence on both of these nutrients is tied to cardiovascular disease and diabetes, suggest that early exposure to overly sweet or salty meals could promote a taste for these unhealthy ingredients in the future.
There are, of course, some very real, deeply rooted evolutionary affinities for salt and sugar. Basic tastes are largely hardwired, predetermined by genetics and our primordial drive to stay alive. In the wild most herbivores and omnivores have developed ways to quickly sort the good foods from the potentially harmful ones. Sugars in fruits, for example, are natural sources of energy. And because of that, animals have strong inclinations for—and receive great pleasure from—eating sweet foods.
Rather than focus on limiting the unhealthful aspects of diet, Gary Beauchamp, a biopsychologist and a leading expert on chemosensory science, prefers to study the promotion of good-for-you foods. Based on data he has collected in the past 40 years, Beauchamp thinks ''that complex multisensory flavor profiles—even more so than individual tastes such as sweet or bitter—are influenced by our experiences during the first few months of life." And if parents introduce healthful tastes and flavors, such as carrots or broccoli, early on, an infant will not only rapidly adapt, but will also develop a preference for these flavors that could persist for a lifetime.
To be clear, there is a marked difference between tastes and flavors. Tastes are one-dimensional, whereas flavors are multimodal. The five basic tastes (sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami) activate specific receptors—the taste buds—of the sensory system, which map directly to cranial nerves. Flavors, on the other hand, arise when information from both the mouth and the nose is combined, and it can be difficult to tease out the contribution of the smells from the assortment of tastes that describe the essence of a flavor. Think about the experience of enjoying a glass of fine wine. Describing the vintage as sweet would be a disservice to the complexity of the liquid before you. While the taste of supple fruit may dominate the varietal, sweet does not exactly describe the flavors from the subtle vanilla undertones or the smoky oak finish. Nor does it explain the lush aroma that hits your nose as you sip.
Situated between the campuses of the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University in West Philadelphia, the Monell Center is the world's only independent, non-profit institute studying the science of taste and smell. "Our hypothesis is that flavors associated with various vegetables, could be influenced by early exposure," says Beauchamp, who is the organization's director. So now he and his team are trying to figure out how exposure to certain tastes and flavors early in life influences the foods we choose to eat as we get older."
More of a bad thing
At first blush, it seems logical that increasing the amount of sugar in an infant's diet would cause the evolutionary drive to kick into high gear, intensifying his or her fervor for sweets. But even though science supports our evolutionary inclination for certain tastes, the evidence is mixed on whether altering exposure to individual tastes can trump the biological components.
Children do have an increased affinity for sweet foods compared to adults, presumably due to their nutritional needs required for active growth. But there has been little evidence to support the idea that increased sugar intake will affect preferences as an adult. "The liking for sweets," Beauchamp says, "is a particularly strong case where you [have] a very big biological component."
As we have developed an innate liking for sweet to get the energy we need, our reactions to other tastes have developed to protect us. Bitter tastes often signal a food might be toxic or poisonous, whereas a sour zing may hint that something has fermented or spoiled, both of which seem to be evolutionary aversions that kept foragers safe when dining in the wild.
Nevertheless, many plants that are good for us are quite bitter. Could our aversion to these tastes also be leading to health problems? In a 2010 review article, researchers at the Monell Center questioned whether over-consumption of bad foods is fully to blame for many diet-related health problems. Although most are quick to point the finger at high-sugar and salt diets as the causative agent for many diseases, the team wondered whether our decreased intake of bitter vegetables—those that are known to regulate the metabolic system—could be exacerbating the problems.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentThe main reasons for the incredible surge in obesity today don't have much to do with not like a variety of veggies. In most countries with a lean population, the variety of foods is fairly low. They eat mostly a few starchy staples and, if affordable, meat and fish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion, the cause is flavor and appetite enhancing chemicals in processed foods. The corporations who manufacture such foods have a vested interest in causing people to eat more, so they add the many forms of MSG, high fructose corn sugar, and other chemicals whose properties aren't known to the general public. In addition to that, there is the more discussed higher concentrations of fats, sodium, and natural sugars.
In my opinion, the solution is partly to avoid any processed foods, and to eat the sorts of low fat, tougher meats our ancestors ate until new tastier breeds were developed relatively recently (game meats and free-range leaner varieties such as buffalo and ostrich).
"high fructose corn sugar, and other chemicals"? High fructose corn syrup is not a 'chemical' by the definition you are using here. It is a naturally derived compound. "whose properties aren't known to the general public"? I'm sure the 'properties' are known, they are just ignored. Look at people who smoke, knowing the dangers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the profit motive though. The main reason to eat more naturally derived foods is that the ingredients in them are there for many reasons; The reason for ingredients in processed foods are simply twofold: 1) cheapness, 2) enhanced consumption.
All is conditioning. We are conditioned by society and our senses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason people are fat is because they eat a diet that is so far removed from nature.
If we eat what we are biologically designed to eat, Fresh ripe raw organic fruit and vegetables and trust in natures innate wisdom then we will be a symbol of healthful living.
If we continue to eat a western scavenger diet, then there are always going to be problems and death will near by.
Children should not eat solids until they have a full set of teeth. Instead of looking for answers in scientific journals rely on common sense not social conditioning. man has been around a lot longer than science has.
The way to get different flavours to babies too young for solid food is for their breastfeeding mothers to eat a varied diet containing lots of vegetables. Aromatic compounds are usually highly fat soluble and will pass into breast milk easily.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBreast is best, and this applies even to us high-class mammalians. Poor babes, having to taste Frankenstein food like hydrolized casein formula!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's us adults that have to get re-conditioned to natural namely, raw, fresh fruits and vegetables; it's easiest, I found, to follow the French with their 'crudites' custom of munching on something raw before anything else.
Fast food means fats food, laced with sugar and salt,all of which are highly addictive, as Finnish researchers, using brain scans have recently shown.
I joined some old friends for weekly exclusive salad lunches, at Sizzler (Salad bar only!)... and , at the ripe old age of sixty-plus, together we actually managed to gradually tune down our salt intake, by replacing sodium with natural spices, like citron, curry, cinnamon, and ginger. Within a few weeks we had our formerly 'pickled' old taste buds back to their pristine form! We had finally conquered our cravings for salt-laden cheeses, too, though it took some perseverance to unlearn old habits, , it was well worthwhile recommending; food for thought..
Youthevity.com
It's certainly worth trying to re-train your tastebuds, or at least your brain. After reading a recent report on 'super-tasters' who could taste more flavors than the average, and therefore tended to avoid foods with unusual chemicals, I took on re-training my brain to like celery. Having despised it all my life, as the flavor seemed something more akin to powerful floor cleaner than food, I found that within a week of daily doses of this obnoxious vegetable, the bitter flavors has almost disappeared. It eventually tasted quite mild and even bizarrely 'pleasant', so much so, that I now buy it weekly. Acquiring the taste took a surprisingly short time once I forced myself to stick it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll man-made chemicals are naturally-derived.
To all: there are some great comments here. I'd like to add that archaeological evidence from the beginnings of the human race has so far indicated that the meat-eating populations were healthier, taller, and lived longer than the ones that subsisted mainly on grains and veggies. An example of this is Native American tribes from the Plains with a heavy reliance on meat, vs the less healthy and shorter-lived tribes of the Southwest whose staple diet was mostly corn (these are according to bone analysis).
Sometimes I suspect that the reason people who eat lots of veggies and fruit live longer healthier lives in modern times than meat-eaters, is simply because such foods are harder to digest and yield fewer calories than modern meats, which are fattier, tastier, and more easily obtained without the exercise of hunting and butchering associated with game animals.
Maybe the reduction in caloric intake is more responsible for greater health for those of us who eat more veggies, than the large amount of phytochemicals and supposedly healthy veg/fruit chemicals? After all the presence of those are offset by slightly toxic natural biochemicals in plants, such as natural pesticides and substances that block nutritional absorption, such as phytic acid.
Raw fruits and vegetables are far more easily digestible than meat, which takes days to get processed through our gut system, for which it is not geared, as we share its design with our distant cousins, the 'Pan's, (who have a minimal meat intake: only circa 800mg per month), as Professor Jane Goodall researched.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeat was our life-saving emergency food through Ice Ages, and may have given us bigger bodies and brains, as Prof. Wrangham claimed, but , not to forget, the First Europeans, the Neandertals, died out, in spite of their bigger-than-thou brains.
All man-made food is too energy-condensed food ( from cooking, plus added concentrates: sugars/fats/oils) and presents the greatest body stress. No wonder this overload of calories, cholesterol etc. can shorten our lives , by causing degenerative diseases in the long run.
By contrast, any multi-colour salad a day provides us with all the phyto-nutrients we need, including bio-protein solar energy from chlorophyll.
After all, what else would we spice our taste buds with other than from natural plant sources?
think: from cinnamon and cocoa to mint and vanilla, we still have the taste buds of a true vegetarian!
Nobody would even think of eating plain meat served on its own; at heart we are still all vegetarians, judging from our taste buds!
N.B.: salt is'nt a natural spice, it's a mineral found in soil and rock, and not meant for human consumption (unless it's organically bound in plant food)!
Every baby rejects it instinctively!
My oldest is adopted (so breast wasn't a viable option) but I made all his food myself from what we were eating (not much sugar or salt or processed food). My youngest was breast fed (and I was eating lots of variety) and then fed store-bought baby food. Neither are overweight, but the older one likes healthy food and the younger one likes junk food, now (they are grown) and even moreso when they were younger. I suspect the quality of the baby food has something to do with it, but I haven't done the research. (Of course, with the oldest, I also used only honey to sweeten things and avoided processed sugar and now apparently young children aren't supposed to have honey.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi do believe that we can be train to eat more healthy foods but us as grow ups don't think into depth and bring to mind that if we give them bad foods as babies then of course we grow up for a liking for those types of foods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this