Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter, Protein ... and Now Fat

ral writes "The human tongue can taste more than sweet, sour, salty, bitter and protein. Researchers have added fat to that list. Dr. Russell Keast, an exercise and nutrition sciences professor at Deakin University in Melbourne, told Slashfood, 'This makes logical sense. We have sweet to identify carbohydrate/sugars, and umami to identify protein/amino acids, so we could expect a taste to identify the other macronutrient: fat.' In the Deakin study, which appears in the latest issue of the British Journal of Nutrition, Dr. Keast and his team gave a group of 33 people fatty acids found in common foods, mixed in with nonfat milk to disguise the telltale fat texture. All 33 could detect the fatty acids to at least a small degree."

Comments

Show me the receptors

[Mindcontrolled]

Just the fact that people can detect fatty acids in their non-fat milk doesn't imply that there is an actually taste receptor for fat. Could also be the change of texture of the milk or activation of other taste receptors by the fatty acids. I would only call this a specific taste when the associated taste receptor protein is identified.

Re:Show me the receptors

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Just the fact that people can detect fatty acids in their non-fat milk doesn't imply that there is an actually taste receptor for fat. Could also be the change of texture of the milk or activation of other taste receptors by the fatty acids. I would only call this a specific taste when the associated taste receptor protein is identified.

I'll notify the British Journal of Nutrition that their published research is invalid.

Re:Show me the receptors

[pookemon]

"mixed in with nonfat milk to disguise the telltale fat texture"

Perhaps you missed that part of the summary (let alone TFA).

Re:Show me the receptors

[Mindcontrolled]

The fact that I included that part in my comment gives indication that I might not have missed it. My point is that the fatty acids still change the physicochemical properties of the milk, and that that might have been what was detected by the test persons. I am not saying that the conclusion is wrong, I am saying that in my opinion this is not enough to establish a new category of taste, taste being defined by specific receptor molecules.

Re:Show me the receptors

[mpapet]

While your goal of identifying the biologic source of the fat sensors is worthy, human behavior dictates something *must* detect fat content separately from texture. Food scientists have long been able to replicate the texture and mouth feel of fats.

A simple experiment, have three anonymous samples of cow's milk, one each full-fat, 2% and 1%. The vast majority of humans enjoy the 1% the least.
You can vary the beverage or food to take into account cultural tendencies and the results are the same. The lowest fat content is the least popular.

Re:Show me the receptors

[Mindcontrolled]

Sure, no question about that. I am just interested how that works.

Re:Show me the receptors

[wjousts]

So I've only read the abstract of the paper and they really don't claim that fat is "tasted", just that some people are able to detect it and they link that ability to BMI. Whether they are really tasting or just detecting some other physicochemical effect is still unclear. There are a lot of different senses involved when you put something in your mouth. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that fat is a taste, but so far nobody has presented a receptor for it.

Re:Show me the receptors

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it was just you.

Re:Show me the receptors

[O-Deka-K]

Well, it's well known that people often associate tastes and smells with their most vivid experiences.

Re:Show me the receptors

[HEbGb]

You're right. I'd imagine the fault is not with the original paper, it's in the interpretation of this paper by the popular press. We see this again and again.

Re:Show me the receptors

[omris]

While it will be interesting if and when such receptors are identified, the first logical step (before attempting to screen every single expressed receptor present in taste buds) is to test to see if it is possible to detect very small quantities of fat. If it isn't, you just saved a few million dollars of grant money. Curiosity is great, but don't be impatient. This is still neat.

Re:Show me the receptors

[PopeRatzo]

sweet, sour, salty, bitter and protein

That's also what she said.

Re:Show me the receptors

[blair1q]

Given that the essential problem is that "taste" is a fairly unscientific word, "other physicochemical effect" pretty much fits in.

We do most "tasting" with our olfactory system, not our tongues.

Clearly these guys are saying, specifically, the tongue can detect fat.

It's unquestioned that anyone can "taste" fat using their entire physiochemical food-analysis system, if they aren't so enmired in the fast-food culture that they don't know what something without fat tastes like.

But the question this raises is, can people tell fake fat from real fat? Are gummy fillers never going to be right until someone finds a way to fake-out these taste receptors?

Re:Show me the receptors

[mattack2]

If I use 2% milk on cereal after being used to non-fat, the 2% seems very thick.

I didn't RTFM, but that's why it seemed like using non-fat milk was surprising.

Re:Show me the receptors

[Anonymous Coward]

By that same point there is no protein (Umami) then either. Your tongue has only four specialized receptor cells. Salty (which is activated by direct transfer of Na ions across the plasma lemma), Sour (which is based on H ions directly crossing the plasma lemma), Sweet (which is receptor meditated and uses 2nd messenger system inside the cell), and lastly Bitter (which is also based on cell surface receptors).

While Umami has been recognized by Asia for centuries, it is a new addition to Western A&P it is based on detection of glutamate, but does not have specialized receptors. Current belief is it activates a combination of the other four, and that specific combination is "associated" with protein through learning. Which is probably how fats would work (if it's not actually texture based like most believe). Either way though from a strictly A&P perspective neither is an actual taste itself because they don't have their own specific receptors.

Re:Show me the receptors

[CorporateSuit]

Could this explain why real butter and fake butter taste so much different to me? Growing up, I never noticed the difference. Then, for a few years, it tasted kind of like real butter has onions and garlic in it. It was to the point where I couldn't eat popcorn if the theater used real butter. I couldn't eat toast if it had real butter. It left a taste in my mouth similar to if I had gone out and licked a homeless person. It wasn't psychosomatic or texture-based. Up to that point, I would always pick real butter where it was available. During those years, however, I shamefacedly had to ask "Do you also offer a vegetable-spread or margarine?" Now, I've reverted back to where I can once again enjoy all butters (real or fake), but I can still determine whether it's real (dairy-based) or not by taste alone. It wasn't dairy aversion, because I always drink whole milk with any given breakfast.

Re:Show me the receptors

[Vrallis]

It left a taste in my mouth similar to if I had gone out and licked a homeless person.

Part of the issue with so many people not liking real butter is that it is notorious for absorbing odor/taste from the air around it. An unclean refrigerator or just one with lots of food that isn't 100% sealed will result in the butter absorbing those flavors, making it rather nasty.

You just have to store butter properly and you can generally get rid of this. Of course this leads to my own personal issue--real plain butter (generic salted sweet cream butter) has little to no flavor to me compared to margarine.

Re:Show me the receptors

[aXis100]

Personally I think Fat it is more of a texture than a taste. I can feel a greasy residue in my mouth after drinking full fat milk or real butter, versus low fat milk or margarine.

The small size of fat globules is what makes things taste creamy - which is why modern low fat ice cream is getting better, they've been able to substitute other compounds with a small grain size. Any larger and it tastes pastey.

Re:Show me the receptors

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ridicule is utterly misguided. Published research is often invalid when it comes to the conclusions drawn. In this case it is absolutely OBVIOUS that the post you replied to is plausible and the fact you can taste a thing does not mean you have a unique receptor for it, as the poster correctly said it may be other receptors.

It pays to use critical analysis skills when reading journals and not blindly accept conclusions, most research tends to overreach when it comes to the scope and importance and significance of findings.

Re:Show me the receptors

[Lakitu]

The fat changes the physicochemical properties of the milk, you say? you mean like its taste?

Re:Show me the receptors

[TheLink]

> Clearly these guys are saying, specifically, the tongue can detect fat.

Do they? There are lots of other surface areas in the mouth.

Anyway it could be that humans can smell the fatty acids even "through" the milk.

Re:Show me the receptors

[X0563511]

It left a taste in my mouth similar to if I had gone out and licked a homeless person.

That's what she said!

Couldn't help it. Sorry.

Re:Show me the receptors

[noidentity]

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Like when I'm reading your post, you're telling me I don't have a special receptor in my eyes for reading the word Mindcontrolled, and another one for the word Just? No way I can see all those different words with just a few kinds of receptors. Same with the tongue, obviously. If they could detect this fat, there must be a fat detector.

Re:Show me the receptors

[pookemon]

Just the fact that people can detect fatty acids in their non-fat milk doesn't imply that there is an actually taste receptor for fat. Could also be the change of texture of the milk or activation of other taste receptors by the fatty acids. I would only call this a specific taste when the associated taste receptor protein is identified.

The fact that I included that part in my comment gives indication that I might not have missed it

Errr - Where? You do know that you have to type the thought, as well as think it...

Re:Show me the receptors

[Joe Tie.]

Please do, that's kind of how this thing works.

Re:Show me the receptors

[jsvendsen]

Just the fact that people can detect fatty acids in their non-fat milk doesn't imply that there is an actually taste receptor for fat. Could also be the change of texture of the milk or activation of other taste receptors by the fatty acids. I would only call this a specific taste when the associated taste receptor protein is identified.

The fact that I included that part in my comment gives indication that I might not have missed it

Errr - Where? You do know that you have to type the thought, as well as think it...

Well, to be fair..

Re:Show me the receptors

[interkin3tic]

That will probably be the next finding. It seems unreasonable to me to demand someone show you not only the phenomenon but the specific mechanism by which it happens all at the same time. For one thing, why would one be looking for a fat taste receptor prior to the discovery that we could taste fat?

Researcher: "I'm applying for a grant to identify the taste receptor for fat!"
Reviewer: "Wait... we can taste fat specifically?"
Researcher: "Sure, maybe! I don't know!"
Reviewer: "So you're wanting to look for a protein, and you have absolutely no evidence it exists? How are you going to look for it?"
Researcher: "Look, these are good questions, questions I will answer in later studies after I find the fat taste receptor. It will be a whole lot easier to answer the question 'Can you taste fat specifically' once we've found the protein that does it."

Re:Show me the receptors

[SharpFang]

...there's the "electric taste" too. There are no taste receptors for it, it's the current that triggers all kinds of receptors (taste, touch, cold, hot) simultaneously.

Re:Show me the receptors

[wjousts]

We do most "tasting" with our olfactory system, not our tongues.

The tongue has specific receptors on the tongue, collected together in taste buds, that detect sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami (and, maybe, fat). That is the sensation that is, scientifically, correctly called taste.

It's complicated because what most people call taste, isn't purely taste. A large part (most even) of what most people call taste, is actually smell and then there are other trigeminal sensations such as texture, temperature, etc.

The whole sensory gestalt of popping something into your mouth is hugely complex and not completely understood.

Re:Show me the receptors

[OrangeCatholic]

>I'll notify the British Journal of Nutrition that their published research is invalid.

Of course it's invalid. They concluded that there's only 6 tastes. That's like saying we can only hear 6 sounds. Utterly brain-dead.

Re:Show me the receptors

[OrangeCatholic]

>as the poster correctly said it may be other receptors

Receptors for what?

Is "fat" some combination of sweet, sour, and salty?

They haven't given us enough known receptors for your "combination" theory to work.

Re:Show me the receptors

[OrangeCatholic]

>The tongue has specific receptors on the tongue, collected together in taste buds, that detect sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami (and, maybe, fat). That is the sensation that is, scientifically, correctly called taste.

Is there a receptor for potassium? If not, how come I can tell the difference between NaCl and KCl?

Is there a receptor for calcium? If not, how come I can tell the difference between NaCl and CaCl?

Oh, I should mention that salts don't volatize, so it's not my nose. And there's certainly no mouthfeel element to eating salt, either.

It's hugely complex and not completely understood, because they're ignoring the obvious, which is that there are receptors for everything. How can there not be?

Re:Show me the receptors

[OrangeCatholic]

Why do you think there aren't different receptors? If there's only one "sweet" receptor, how come artificial sweeteners taste like chemicals?

I really don't get where this 4-taste nonsense is coming from. The human tongue is extremely sensitive and can detect a whole slew of chemicals in the milligram to microgram range.

Oh, and as a computer person, you should realize "bitter" isn't a taste per se. Any more than "null" is an integer. But it is a valid concept that has meaning.

Re:Show me the receptors

[wjousts]

There are salt receptors in the taste buds, that why you can taste salt. They are not entirely specific for Na and will detect other salts to varying degrees.

They are not receptors for everything. That is clearly ridiculous.

the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[OlRickDawson]

There is the Calcium(www.dailymail.co.uk) taste buds which were not listed, and I'm sure there have been others discovered.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[OlRickDawson]

The daily mail link is the first one I came across in a Google search. There are many other pages. I should also have said "there are" instead of "There is". I've not had enough sleep to keep from making gramatical errors.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[BKX]

First, did you actually read the article you linked to? It clearly states that they don't believe that we have an extra calcium sensing taste bud, but that our existing taste buds detect calcium as bitter, and therefore people who are sensitive to bitter (and don't like it) tend not to eat enough calcium as a result.

Second, there are probably a whole bunch of tastes we can detect that we don't list as having special taste buds. Picante* comes up high on the list (and is an important consideration in many cuisines). Umami was a taste that many didn't list until just a few years ago but was always a consideration in Asian cuisine (as is picante). Anyone with half a brain could have told you that humans can detect fat content in food by taste. Just go and try the fat free equivalent of a naturally fatty food. It'll taste like ass, precisely because you're not sensing the fat content. They can try to substitute things in to overcome this limitation like extra sugars or textures that mimic the mouthfeel of fat, but they aren't the same as actual fat.

* (This is the Spanish word for the hot kind of spicy. In English this is sometimes called piquant (from French), but that word can also mean spicy in a more general sense (think Christmas spice), and so I like the Spanish word instead. Hot is also a bad word for picante since it can also refer to temperature, and when talking about food, we need to differentiate somehow.)

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[jedidiah]

Picante has also been described as ALL of your tastebuds being forcibly activated at once in a sort of brute force sort of way as if they had been forced open by crowbars.

So Picante is just gastronomic napalm.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[cromar]

I may be mistaken, but I think it is generally considered that spicy or picante does not have a flavor receptor and that the picante experience can be attributed to chemicals that cause irritation in our mouths. It's funny to me that in the West we have known of savory foods for thousands of years, and yet many did not pay attention to that realm of cuisine, or at least not attribute the status of flavor to it. It has certainly been used to great affect in almost every culture I can think of! I guess it is new to people, because we did not know of a receptor for it, but then, I think that the 4 flavors theory is relatively new...

PS It is very annoying when you want to describe picante foods and you lose nuance of meaning because of the overlap between hot and spicy. Thanks for pointing out a better word to use to describe that flavor!

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[Gilmoure]

Or the start of really good chili.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[Chris Burke]

(This is the Spanish word for the hot kind of spicy. In English this is sometimes called piquant (from French), but that word can also mean spicy in a more general sense (think Christmas spice)

The adjective to describe something with e.g Christmas spice in it in English is "spiced".

I.e. "Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum", as opposed to "Captain Morgan's Spicy Rum" which sounds both scary and awesome. /me considers that he possesses both Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum and Tabasco sauce...

Anyway yeah I do like the Spanish 'picante' too for its clarity. I've forgotten most of what little Spanish I ever knew, but I did appreciate how it both seemed to lack extraneous synonyms for everything (though that probably makes poets sad), yet also had separate words for things that are really different enough to be considered homonyms in English.

"Free" is my favorite example... "Software libre" is perfectly clear in Spanish. There's really no need to say "Libre como libertad, no gratis como cerveza".

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[Xtravar]

PS It is very annoying when you want to describe picante foods and you lose nuance of meaning because of the overlap between hot and spicy. Thanks for pointing out a better word to use to describe that flavor!

What about... "zippy"? It's an English word, and it makes you seem like a senior citizen!

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[jc42]

I may be mistaken, but I think it is generally considered that spicy or picante does not have a flavor receptor and that the picante experience can be attributed to chemicals that cause irritation in our mouths.

Yeah; you probably are mistaken. ;-) For a long time, there has been a bit of a medical mystery about how hot peppers produce a sensation that feels like major heat damage, but medical tests can't detect any actual tissue damage of any sort. This was answered a few years ago by some researchers who determined that the capsaicin chemical that does the job targets specifically the nerve endings that detect heat, and tricks them into sending a false signal to the brain saying "I'm being burned!"

An interesting aspect to this was verification that capsaicin does target specifically mammalian heat sensors, and doesn't work with birds. Anyone who has pet birds is familiar with this. Seed mixtures intended for birds such as parrots usually contain hot peppers, which the birds like. I like to grow my own hot peppers in pots that I bring in during the winter. I have to protect them from our pet conure and cockatiels, because they'll land and the plants and devastate them. When I decide to pick the ripe ones, the conure especially is right there demanding samples of the harvest, which she devours whole.

Further research is needed on the topic, but the hypothesis is that hot peppers evolved their "hot" chemical explicitly to distinguish between mammals and birds. Pepper seeds have a thin, leathery shell which doesn't survive the long, slow digestive system of most mammals. But birds can't afford to carry food around for long; they have a short, powerful digestive system that extracts just the easily-digested stuff and dumps the rest after only a few hours, because it would take more energy to transport it than it contains. The leathery shells of pepper seeds do survive a bird's digestive process. So the hypothesis is that peppers are specifically encouraging birds as seed-transport agents, and discouraging mammals that would digest the seeds.

There's some sort of biological irony in the fact that hot peppers have been spread from their origin (South America) to the rest of the world by a mammal (us). Of course, we can easily do something that's difficult for other mammals: We can dilute the hot pepper enough that it's just a minor (or not so minor) flavor mixed with other flavors, and not overpowering as it is if you eat the pepper alone.

In any case, to be on topic, we should note that the hotness of hot peppers isn't really a "flavor". It's more a case of our heat sensors being tricked by a chemical produced by plants that are trying to prevent us from eating their fruit and digesting their seeds.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[Red Flayer]

Picante has also been described as ALL of your tastebuds being forcibly activated at once in a sort of brute force sort of way as if they had been forced open by crowbars.

I like the imagery... but it leaves out one set of receptors that is triggered by picante: surface pain receptors.

That is, unless you consider pain a taste sensation, in which case my^H^H a dominatrix can give you the best meal you've ever tasted.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[The_mad_linguist]

More than that, in some species of birds capsaicin acts as a painkiller!

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[OlRickDawson]

Actually, I did. However, the one that convinced me that it was real is this one in science daily. The receptor is called CaSR. Of course, that was in mice, not humans. The article I linked to was the first one I found, and not the best, and definitely not the one that I had read a while back when I first heard about it.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[steveha]

Hot is also a bad word for picante since it can also refer to temperature, and when talking about food, we need to differentiate somehow.

According to the Jargon File, the hacker slang has a term that means the same thing you called picante. The term is: zapped

I don't know how common it is, but I have used it for years. It's a useful distinction to make and deserves a word.

steveha

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[jc42]

Or do you just mean "mistaken" in the overly-pedantic, I-like-telling-people-they're-wrong sort of way?

I think that's it. ;-)

Or perhaps I was misunderstanding the OP's claim that capsaicin causes an "irritation". There have been numerous medical comments that hot peppers don't seem to actually cause measurable irritation or any other sort of cellular damage. The mystery was why our nerves shout so loudly "I'm being burned!", when no such damage, not even mild irritation, seems to be measurable. The answer turns out that what capsaicin does isn't (what medical people call) "irritation"; it's rather a case of binding to our temperature sensors and tricking them into sending a false signal. This wouldn't usually be called "irritation" in medical terminology, though I suppose the term could easily be misused that way in common speech.

There are any number of other chemical compounds, mostly from plants, that cause injury-type responses in animals when no injury has actually happened. Capsaicin's "hot" effect is just one of the examples. It's interesting that we've adopted the plant as a flavor ingredient specifically because of this false-injury response.

There are other "hot" spices, of course, such as horseradish and black pepper. I haven't yet read of anyone pinning down their mechanism in the detail that was done for hot peppers. But then, I haven't been explicitly looking for that information, so it might be in The Literature. It has been verified that our sensory system can distinguish several such "hot" things, in that we can become accustomed to just one of them. Thus, people who eat a lot of hot peppers become tolerant of them, while wasabi remains hot, and vice versa. So if you want to qualify these kinds of "heat" as flavors, you'd have to say that capsaicin and wasabi are different flavors. Or you could say that false signals in temperature sensors shouldn't be called "flavor", because those aren't flavor sensors.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[jc42]

Actually, capsaicin is used in some human medicines as a pain suppressant. The actual mechanism doesn't seem to be well understood (probably because the studies haven't been funded yet ;-), but it seems to be effective for some kinds of pain.

Capsaicin is also used in some treatments for minor sports injuries. The mechanism seems to be that it induces vasodilation, increasing blood flow to the area, and that's really what treats the problem.

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[sjames]

Just go and try the fat free equivalent of a naturally fatty food. It'll taste like ass, precisely because you're not sensing the fat content.

And so they load it down with extra HFCS to cover for the bad taste. Now you have a nasty tasting high calorie food that has removed the substance that triggers satiety so you'll tend to eat a lot more of it. But it's a good thing you didn't eat any of that horrible fat!

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[OrangeCatholic]

>Thanks for pointing out a better word to use to describe that flavor!

IT'S CALLED CAPSAICIN. C18H27NO3

Re:the Calcium taste buds weren't listed

[cromar]

Yum, this Kung Pao chicken is extra capsaicin today. Huh? You, know, it's extra C18H27NO3! WTF?

Protein?

[Chris Mattern]

It took me a few moments that by "protein" they actually mean the so-called "fifth flavor" often referred to by the Japanese word umami "savory".

Re:Protein?

[Misanthrope]

That kind of confused me, the umami taste is caused by glutamates which are sometimes found in protein heavy foods but also come from such random places as tomatoes, seaweed or a number of fermented sauces. Protein doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Re:Protein?

[Mindcontrolled]

Glutamate is an amino acid that makes up proteins. The receptor recognizes it in its unbound form, not in the form incorporated in proteins, though.

Re:Protein?

[amRadioHed]

You mean it took you a few minutes to get to the third sentence in the summary where it said just that?

Re:Protein?

[Miseph]

He clearly attended an American public school. Have mercy, and be glad it was more intelligent at least than "hurk durk football Budweiser muh dick".

Full disclosure: I am a product of American public education. I mean... hurk durk football Budweiser muh dick.

Re:Protein?

[RManning]

That kind of confused me, the umami taste is caused by glutamates which are sometimes found in protein heavy foods but also come from such random places as tomatoes, seaweed or a number of fermented sauces. Protein doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Actually, it does. All those "random places" you list contain protein. Don't mistake protein and meat.

Re:Protein?

[Hurricane78]

Exactly. Just that “protein” is in no way “umami”.
There actually are people saying that they found separate protein buds. But it’s not confirmed, as far as I know.

Re:Protein?

[Hurricane78]

Except that since umami has nothing to do with protein detection, the third sentence has no relationship to the title.

Re:Protein?

[WillDraven]

I knew schools here were going down hill but have they really started making everyone sound like the swedish chef from the muppet show now?

Re:Protein?

[shiftless]

+1, Funny

Re:Protein?

[Miseph]

Oddly, no... but somebody rated me "insightful". Never ceases to amaze.

Re:Protein?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Except that since umami has nothing to do with protein detection, the third sentence has no relationship to the title.

Has this changed? Not-too-old thinking was that it was a glutamate detector, which is a good signal that amino acids abound in a food. We've learned to abuse this sense to extreme yumminess levels.

There's something else

[Misanthrope]

What the summary doesn't mention is that the BMIs of the sample group were inversely proportional to their ability to sense fat.

Re:There's something else

[tool462]

The article actually does mention that (more or less).

Allow me to be the first to diagnosis myself with this horrible disease!

Re:There's something else

[brian0918]

Except of course that most obesity is caused by insulin resistance, which in turn is caused by continual spiking of insulin from increased blood glucose, which in turn is caused by continual consumption of highly-refined carbs. So while fat people certainly eat fatty foods (as does everyone else), the root cause of their obesity is the refined carbs in their diet, not the fat.

Re:There's something else

[SirGarlon]

Actually, I've noticed that when my wife tries to substitute a low-fat ingredient into her baking, she insists it tastes the same and I can always tell. Guess which of us has a higher BMI? Generally my approach is to eat fatty foods less often rather than to eat reduced-fat variants, which just don't satisfy. Except for Cheez-It crackers. For some reason the low-fat version of those tastes better.

Re:There's something else

[Jer]

Check the ingredients list on your Cheez-its. Odds are the low-fat ones contain MSG and the regular ones don't.

Re:There's something else

[spun]

Many flavors are soluble in fat, but not water. When creating low fat versions of high fat dishes, you must always adjust the seasoning to account for this.

Re:There's something else

[jedidiah]

Well, that's just today's obesity which is an effect of the relatively recent demonization of fat.

People ran away from fat and there was sort of a nutritional backlash.

It also didn't help that the inherently unbalanced and politically motivated "new" food pyramid did not account for American eating habits.

Result: "remove fat, replace with refined carbs and no fiber"

Re:There's something else

[gtbritishskull]

Except of course that most obesity is caused by insulin resistance

The main point of the study is that there seems to be a correlation between obesity and a person's ability to taste fat. You blatantly contradict this with your post. Would you care to cite your sources?

Re:There's something else

[RManning]

As someone who has gone from obese to quite trim, I can tell you that in my experience obesity is caused by taking in more energy than you burn, period! I cut the amount of calories i take in, and I lose weight. I add calories, I gain. I was never a carb eater, just a "too much" eater. Of course, carbs are really high calorie, so generally cutting calories mean cutting carbs. But, I'm not convinced the type of food is nearly that important.

That's my long winded way of saying: citation needed. :)

Re:There's something else

[blair1q]

Since BMI isn't proportional to body composition, I say you're full of McNuggets.

Re:There's something else

[camperdave]

in my experience obesity is caused by taking in more energy than you burn, period!

That's the easy way out. You're never going to sell any diet books like that. You've got to have a "system", and if you can tie it into merchandise, especially consumable merchandise like food, then so much the better.

Re:There's something else

[katz]

I've noticed that if I eat Chinese food after I haven't had any for a long period of time, it often tastes too "rich" for me. Nothing some more helpings of it over the next two weeks won't cure ;)

Re:There's something else

[Belial6]

obesity is caused by taking in more energy than you burn, period!

What is it like living without an anus?

Re:There's something else

[Belial6]

Bingo. Of course "obese" is a worthless word at this point. It as been solidly linked to BMI which is a total joke. Heck, I was "obese" just this last weekend, yet somehow you could see every muscle of my ripped legs, and the majority of my stomach muscles. Just to show how stupid BMI and the new definition of "obese" is, here is what obese can look like.

Re:There's something else

[blueg3]

Research shows that you can impose a completely arbitrary system -- as long as people are watching what they eat, following basic dietary principles, and obeying rules that they think are helpful, they'll do fine.

Re:There's something else

[brian0918]

To convince you otherwise, check out Science journal writer and dietary research analyst Gary Taubes' epic treatise Good Calories, Bad Calories , which examines the ~150 year history of dietary research on obesity, and concludes that the type of food may be the primary factor.

He also examines this notion that you can simply reduce the number of calories, and see long-term weight loss. Not only does reducing calories prove nearly impossible in the long-term, simple calorie reduction does not improve heart disease risk factors, which is the primary purpose of reducing obesity. I would be curious what exactly you cut out of your diet, and what your lipid profile looks like (e.g. triglycerides, number of HDL, size of VLDL). Skinny does not automatically mean healthy.

What about electricity?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know... for when you're testing 9 volt batteries.

Re:What about electricity?

[dunkelfalke]

9v battery is for sissies. 12v wall wart is for real men.

Re:What about electricity?

[operagost]

Keep it under 500ma. Any more tastes like burning.

Re:What about electricity?

[trentfoley]

I'm sure the poster would have chosen DC had it been an option. AC was the closest possibility.

Re:What about electricity?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was actually a DC post. I've never seen an AC battery.

Re:What about electricity?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a perfectly valid point. I consider our sense of electrical current a different sense, but really. Most people don't even recognize balance and proprioception. They have their arbitrary list of 5 and they're sticking to it.

Re:What about electricity?

[ozbird]

9v battery is for sissies. 12v wall wart is for real men.

"Real men" know that wall warts don't go flat.

Re:What about electricity?

[rubycodez]

yeah, what moron put the terminals of car and deep cycle marine batteries so far apart? have to use a damn meter then.

Re:What about electricity?

[rubycodez]

he's gay, gives simultaneous rim job, teabag and head from the front.

Savory

[ichthus]

The PopSci article I read a couple of years ago named "savory" as one of the taste buds' senses. Maybe this is the same as fat sense, since nothing fat-free tastes as good as its fat-...not free counterpart.

Re:Savory

[Wyatt Earp]

Savory is umami.

Re:Savory

[oodaloop]

Yeah, eel is rather savory.

Re:Savory

[ichthus]

WHAT did you say about my mommy?!

Ok, I had to look it up. I see what you mean, now. I saw umami in the summary, admittedly didn't RTFA, and thought I'd comment on what I thought was an oversight.

Re:Savory

[wjousts]

No, the savory taste is called umami. It's caused by detecting glutamates (like MSG). This is something different.

Re:Savory

[ichthus]

Unami is umami, along with edamame.

Re:Savory

[ichthus]

I actually considered fat-enriched, or fat-fortified. Fat-embiggened would have been another possibility.

Re:Savory

[somersault]

Fat inclusive? Naturally fatty? Unmolestedly fatty?

The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on it

[SmallFurryCreature]

Those scumbags had a documentary on fat in our food and how we as humans have evolved because of it and become very good at eating very fatty food. And they showed it all with constant displays of fat food... succulent beef, silky smooth chocolate, whipped cream, bacon and eggs... I gained ten pounds just watching and at the end ate my remote control.

On the whole, I have to say they got a point. Fat tastes good. Some animals have learned to eat/detect certain muds because they need the minerals in them. Our brain needs fat to fuel itself, so we have learned to tast fat.

Now if you excuse me, I got to devour a liter of icecream... mmm.

but why?

[clickety6]

with all these different taste receptors, why can't i taste my own tongue?

Re:but why?

[snspdaarf]

Bite down on your tongue. It tastes painful.

Re:but why?

[BlueParrot]

with all these different taste receptors, why can't i taste my own tongue?

You probably do to some extent, but since it is always there your brain doesn't consider it special. An interesting question might be whether you can taste another person tongue, and I guess I should mention just how daft the joke about slashdotters romantic achievements is, before somebody decides to make it in response to my post

Re:but why?

[FelixNZ]

It's just that you're tasting it ALL THE TIME that it isn't detectable any more. For instance, my wife's tongue tastes different :P

Re:but why?

[somersault]

For some reason even if I initially notice the smell of someone's breath when kissing, it goes away after a second or two. I wouldn't say I have ever tasted another person's tongue, though I have detected hints of chocolate after she apparently only had one malteser in the past 20 minutes or so.

I think you are more likely to taste your own tongue after you try brushing it with some toothpaste to get your tastebuds all confused. I'd say it's likely to just be the taste of your own saliva though rather than your tongue actually having a taste of its own. You could always just try eating it..

Wow this is a strange conversation.

Re:but why?

[Mashiki]

Tastes like burning. I think I did it wrong...

Re:but why?

[Spy der Mann]

Bite down on your tongue. It tastes painful.

That joke had such a.... (sunglasses) good taste.

Re:but why?

[interkin3tic]

For some reason even if I initially notice the smell of someone's breath when kissing, it goes away after a second or two.

Sensory adaptation. Not sure where most of that comes from, at the receptor level or in the processing of the signal, but basically you would notice it again if the smell were to get stronger somehow. Makes sense when you think about it: it's fine to feel something like a spear you're holding in your hand when you pick it up, but it does you no good to continually be reminded by the touch receptors in your hand that you're holding a spear, at least not at the same level. Pain same way. If you get a cut on your hand, you want to avoid touching dirty things with it and getting infected, and you need to know to move it from whatever injured it initially, but if you're not doing anything more with the hand, you don't want to be in the same amount of pain as when it first was injured.

Smell: you'd want to identify if a predator was there at like 200 yards, but you don't want to be overwhelmed with fear at 200 yards if it stays that distance for very long. Your sense of smell tells you a lion is close, you freeze and stay still. If the lion doesn't notice you and come closer, 5 minutes later the smell hasn't increased, sensory adaptation makes you not smell that same level anymore, you calm down a little and leave.

Re:but why?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

If you've ever eaten grilled cow tongue or similar you'd know it's a rather weird experience. I spent the rest of the day having this urge to eat my own tongue.

Re:but why?

[somersault]

Yeah it seems much faster than just "getting used to it" though, I've wondered if there's something more specific involved.

Re:but why?

[shiftless]

Well, it's a bit like the 'tare' function on a scale. The important thing about sensations like touch and taste and smell is the successful detection and identification of new ones. The brain, powerful though it may be, only has so much processing power available to it. After you've been made aware of a new smell, if you continue to experience that same smell for a while eventually the brain is going to start filtering it out and ignoring it. So now, with a lot less "noise" on the line, the brain can devote more of its attention to observing transient sensory inputs.

I have a bit of insight into how this type of thing works, as I have Central Auditory Processing Disorder. Basically the part of my brain that processes speech is damaged or dysfunctional. The result is my brain has to work harder to process speech. So for instance if I talk to you in a loud, crowded room, I may have a really tough time making out what you're saying in some cases. Whereas in a quiet room, or say in a room with a loud but constant drone, I could hear you just fine. The mind can tune out the drone pretty easily but it's pretty damn hard to tune out a bunch of loud and random noise. The more sound there is to process, the harder the brain has to work and the more chance it could miss something important. Same thing with touch and taste as they work on similar principles. The brain is always interested in finding opportunities to tune out sensory input that it deems as unnecessary and distracting.

Re:but why?

[OrangeCatholic]

Are you saying you can taste iron? Heresy! There's only SIX flavors you religious zealot!

A special category of first post for science

[spun]

In any science story, we will more than likely find a special category of 'first post' comment: the 'I'm smarter than teh science-talking-guys!" first post. These posts always feature a blindingly obvious 'criticism' of the science at hand, usually made by someone with no formal training in the field, that any competent scientist will take into account, but many halfway competent science writers will fail to mention. Thus, to the uninformed, the first poster appears insightful. "Wow! Good call, how could those dumb scientists miss that?!?" Uh, yeah, they didn't. I'm just curious, but what is your background in biology and chemistry? Are you educated on this subject, or are you just one of those people who likes to think they know better than those boneheaded scientist-types?

Just in case I haven't made it crystal clear: you have not thought up anything the scientists did not take into account. I guarantee, you have not come up with a cogent criticism of this experiment, and you are not smarter than the fellows performing this experiment. You are not insightful, and your karma whoring question does not add anything of value to the discussion.

Re:A special category of first post for science

[Mindcontrolled]

To satisfy your curiosity - I have a degree in biochemistry. Not in sensory biochemistry, I worked in the field of protein structure while I was still in academia. My criticism is not so much directed at the scientists doing that experiment, but rather on how it is reported here. I didn't even challenge the validity or the design of the experiment, I was just asking a follow-up question. The barrier to establishing a new category of taste simply is the identification of a receptor for it. The sensory system is complex, so the simple fact that fatty acids are detected does not mean there is a taste category associated with it. You might have noticed that my post was in fact not of the "LOLOLOL dumb scientarst idjots" type, I was just asking the question that any life scientist would ask when seeing this headline - "Is there an actual receptor?".

Re:A special category of first post for science

[gtbritishskull]

What amazes me is that you were able to RTFS, then follow the link and RTFA, and then follow the link in that article, while still being able to get first post. Absolutely amazing.

Re:A special category of first post for science

[Anonymous Coward]

Really impressive.

I could easily be missing something, but my reading of your reply does not detect an ounce of hostility to the GP.

    Bravo,... you are a gentleman and a scholar!

Re:A special category of first post for science

[spun]

Actually, yes. Yes I do.

Re:A special category of first post for science

[blair1q]

The scientists, or their 5 peer-reviewers on the panel assembled by the publisher when it received their submission.

(We can now devolve into a harangue on the talents and diligence of the average peer reviewer...)

Re:A special category of first post for science

[shutdown -p now]

I could easily be missing something, but my reading of your reply does not detect an ounce of hostility to the GP.

That is precisely what makes it so very insulting! ~

Re:A special category of first post for science

[registrar]

Well, I am a scientist. You give scientists too much credit. I have seen papers published in the British Journal of Cancer that did not satisfy the most basic considerations of epidemiology. It is very often the case that simple dumb objections to published work in high profile scientific journals are correct.

Re:A special category of first post for science

[interkin3tic]

Are you educated on this subject, or are you just one of those people who likes to think they know better than those boneheaded scientist-types?

Those have suddenly become mutually exclusive?!? When it comes to my subject area, I often think I know better than many of the other boneheaded scientist-types!

Re:A special category of first post for science

[spun]

Dude. You're busting my bubble here.

more discrimination!

[Thud457]

Is this something I'd have to be a tetrachromat to understand?

Re:more discrimination!

[Gilmoure]

Like any of us would be able to afford to travel on flying wings.

Umami vs. Savory

[cromar]

It kind of gets me that we use the word "umami" to describe the (supposedly) newly found taste of proteins (glutamates, etc.) Why can't we anglophones just keep calling that sensation the same as we have for hundreds of years: "savory." I just think it's funny is all :)

Come to think of it, though, maybe it is just this way in America. It seems like we went through a culinary dark ages for a half century, or so, not everywhere, but in a lot of kitchens. Maybe it was the Great Depression or the advent of packaged food... anyway, maybe the flavor fell out of the popular consciousness enough to make us forget about the flavor entirely! But then there's MSG, so I don't know. A very poor substitute for natural glutamates like those found in cheese, Chicken Marsala, parsley, etc.

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[jedidiah]

Why not let the guy that discovered it name it? He kind of has it coming to him.

It just so happens that this guy is Japanese.

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[dangitman]

Why can't we anglophones just keep calling that sensation the same as we have for hundreds of years: "savory." I just think it's funny is all :)

Because "savory" is not a direct equivalent to "umami."

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[ld a,b]

Technically it is.
In addition to that, it is cognate with the Japanese word for sweetness, which doesn't make for a very good etymology.
In English, on the other hand, it is a good term that won't be confused with anything else.

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[canajin56]

Because we used "savory" to mean "pleasing" which describes all kinds of good things. Unless you're European, in which case you mean "savoury" as in the course that follows pudding, usually pickled fish, toasts, or brandied fruits, few-to-none of which are "savory" like you're trying to twist and bastardize the word into meaning. We've not ever referred to glutamates as "savory". If we've ever referred to a specific taste as the "savory" taste, it's been aromatic herbs, not glutamates. PS "savory" comes from French, so funny that you're all anti-Japanese (even implying he lied by saying he "supposedly" discovered the taste receptors) when the word you want to use isn't even ENGLISH ORIGINALLY. Some bastards started using it 800 years ago when they discovered there wasn't a word for it, but the French had one! Heaven forbid we do that again. Nosir, gotta protect the language, NO NEW WORDS.

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[canajin56]

Savory in English MEANS things flavoured with aromatic herbs, which doesn't make for a very good etymology.
Savory in British MEANS for the course of a meal that's served after pudding, which doesn't make for a very good etymology.
In fact, along the first point, there's even a herb specifically called "Savory". Also you have a bizarre definition of "technically equivalent" if you are saying "sweet" technically means "aromatic herbs".

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[musicalmicah]

PS "savory" comes from French, so funny that you're all anti-Japanese (even implying he lied by saying he "supposedly" discovered the taste receptors) when the word you want to use isn't even ENGLISH ORIGINALLY.

To be fair, a lot more English words come from French than Japanese. Using French-derived words--especially ones that have been part of English for centuries--is generally much more comfortable for native English speakers.

That said, I do think you make an absolutely valid point that "umame" is a valuable term because it's more specific than "savory."

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[cromar]

Dude, chill out. You read way too much into what I posted.

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[interkin3tic]

Why can't we anglophones just keep calling that sensation the same as we have for hundreds of years: "savory."

My understanding is that we scientists convinced us westerners that because we hadn't found evidence that "savory" existed, it didn't exist. I guess the Japanese ignored the scientists telling them that their miso soup wasn't a unique flavor, it was a combination of other senses, stubbornly insisted that they could taste umami, and then turned out to be right. So I would submit that we should call it umami if for no other reason that we gave up our concept of savory wheras the Japanese kept theirs.

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[DiscoDave_25]

In Melvyn Bragg's "Adventure of English", it is observed that Winston Churchill's speech, "we shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight in the streets, we shall never surrender", all the words can be traced back to old English, except for "surrender", which can be traced back to old French (n.b. I actually quite like the French but find the above overridingly funny)

Re:Umami vs. Savory

[cromar]

The Oxford English Dictionary's entry for umami:

Forms: 19- umame, 19- umami. [< Japanese umami deliciousness (1721 or earlier) < uma-, stem of umai delicious + -mi, suffix forming abstract nouns from adjectives (but commonly written as if from -mi taste).]

A category of taste corresponding to the 'savoury' flavour of free glutamates in various foods, esp. protein-rich fermented and aged ones such as mature cheeses and soy sauce; spec. the flavour of monosodium glutamate. Also: monosodium glutamate itself. Umami is sometimes described as a fifth basic taste alongside sweet, sour, salt, and bitter. 1979 New Scientist 3 May 361 To the Japanese the 'umami' flavour is among the most essential. They explain it to Westerners as the taste of broth, of meat, of tuna and of seaweed. 1993 Independent on Sunday 4 Apr. (Rev. Suppl.) 48/1 The Glutamate Information Bureau in London..prefers to call MSG by its Japanese name, umami{em}which means deliciousness. 2000 Daily Tel. 25 Jan. 12/5 Today's study in the journal Nature Neuroscience identifies the molecule on the tongue that responds to umami. 2003 A. TELFORD Kitchen Hand 254 Other foods with umami are naturally brewed soy sauce and fish sauce.

Umami is so fat...

[famebait]

Oh, sod it, I'm stumped. You finish the joke.

Re:silly made up word

[REBloomfield]

best tell the japanese....

Fat is PHAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who can't taste fat? What's up with that? Tons better than scat, fat is where it's at! Fat a tat tat!

'Primary' tastes?

[Twinbee]

I wonder if taste can ever be broken down into components, like colour/sight can be broken down into three primary colours, or how sound can be broken down into collections of frequencies.

Re:'Primary' tastes?

[OrangeCatholic]

It already was broken down into components when they announced 4. But clearly taste and smell don't work like that, because molecules are not part of a spectrum like light and sound.

Oh, and for those kindergarten teachers who claim there's only 5 senses, what about heat? What about pain? What about sense of time?

I feel like textbooks have stupidified me with their low-cardinal accounting of the obvious.

Re:taste vs smell

[iroll]

No, they added a 5th when they discovered a 5th receptor in the mouth (savory/umami). The classic "4 tastes" are a much older idea than modern bioscience, so you can expect to see some updates.

fatty "acid"

[goffster]

i.e. sour?

Taste? Feel!

[owlstead]

Meh, I just feel fat.

Well mod me down, then!

[spun]

Okay, well, ahh, kind of took the wind out of my sails. In my defense, you are probably the first actual knowledgeable Slashdotter to engage in this kind of first-postery.

Re:Well mod me down, then!

[Mindcontrolled]

No offense taken, spun. I know the kind of posts you mean and been tempted to answer like you often enough. Kinda ironic that your reply hit me in that case. In hindsight, I should have been less terse in the first post. Guess I felt a certain urge to get that elusive frist psot...

"Hot" and "hot"

[joh]

In German the equivalent to the English "hot" (in taste) is "scharf" which means literally "sharp" as in "a sharp blade". This is different from the word for high temperature (which is "heiss", meaning again "hot" in English).

I have always found "sharp" to be a fairly usable description of that somewhat painful taste and one that is less likely to be confused with actual temperature than "hot".

Re:"Hot" and "hot"

[somersault]

I just differentiate by saying stuff like "spicy flavour", "spicy as in hot", or "hot as in temperature" etc when there is possible ambiguousness.

Personally if I were to relate the word sharp to a flavour I would probably relate it to the bittersweet taste you get from citrus fruits!

Bacon!

[stevusmichaels]

That's why it's so good!

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[blair1q]

> Our brain needs fat to fuel itself

Wrong. Your brain runs on carbohydrates, not fat.

Now put down the McNuggets and back away slowly.

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[somersault]

I used to believe all that crap about low fat this low fat that, it's everywhere. I've been eating a lot of fatty foods since last September though and I'm still not fat. I do avoid high GI foods though unless I've just been doing heavy exercise. Ice cream is meant to be a good way to get fat because it combines both high sugar and high fat.

Sweet, bitter, now fat

[ascari]

Relieved to see TFA was about tastebuds: When I saw the title I thought somebody had published the story of my life!

Science?

[Ironhandx]

Why does it seem like I think that every third or fourth science article I see should be in Idle?

I don't know whats worse, that or the fact that these people are getting paid to produce this research.

what a surprise

[newdsfornerds]

I can taste fat chicks in party hats from a mile away.

Re:what a surprise

[tsalmark]

Tongue get run over by a train when you were younger?

Re:what a surprise

[newdsfornerds]

I was bitten by a radioactive awesome.

Obligatory Phil Jupitus

[Heed00]

Is that the sound you make when you taste it? Oooooo mammy!

"Logical sense"

[musicalmicah]

This makes logical sense

Has anyone ever stumbled upon an idea that made "illogical" sense? Why not just say "This makes sense"?

Re:Daily Mail?

[OlRickDawson]

It was the first one that google pulled up. How about Science Daily?

Protein??

[Hurricane78]

What’s with umami? That one’s proven (the receptors are found), and well-known.
Protein is not umami. And protein isn’t even proven yet.

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[Korin43]

I'm surprised that anyone believes the whole "If you eat fat you'll get fat" thing. How you get fat is pretty simple: You need a certain amount of calories, and if you eat more than that you'll gain weight; if you eat less, you'll lose weight. It's true that some high-fat foods have more calories than low-fat foods (bacon vs salad), but it's not the fat percentage that's making you fat.

I guess it sort of makes sense to think that eating fat would make you until.. at least until you realize that eating salad doesn't turn you into a tree.

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[eonlabs]

The insulative layer surrounding neurons is made of fat. No fat, you get excitation bleeding (not blood, think short circuits). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[infaustus]

Energy enters neurons almost exclusively as sugars. In the rare situations when adequate carbohydrates are unavailable, neurons can survive off of ketone bodies from fats elsewhere in the body, but this is a last resort and ketone bodies have poisonous byproducts. In this context, saying "the brain is fueled by carbohydrates" is true and meaningful, saying it runs on fat is mostly false, and saying it runs on ATP is not meaningful and sort of dickish.

Missed out

[bakdor]

Deakin is right over my back fence - they could have invited me over to their little dinner party. Snobs.

What about other nutrients?

[plopez]

For example, when I don't eat fresh fruits or veggies for a while I start to *crave* them. There must be something that triggers this. Perhaps flavor or something else. It can't be just sugar since I have ample access to sugar.

As an undergrad I once tried to only eat processed food for a while as an experiment (Spam, ramen, frozen pizza, frozen burritos etc). I had to quit in about a week. I just started craving fresh food in a crazy manner.

I wonder if this has been investigated.

Re:What about other nutrients?

[OrangeCatholic]

No, it hasn't, even though it's completely obvious. They're still working on if skim milk tastes different.

Yes, you can taste nutrients. THat's the whole frigging point of having taste buds.

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[plague3106]

To be fair McNuggests DO have quite a bit of protien too.

Re:The Bastard Broadcasting Company had a doc on i

[plague3106]

It depends on how much fat you're eating. Fat is important to watch because you get nine calories out of it instead of the four from carbs or protien. The problem with sugar is that your body absorbs it WAY faster than it can possibly use it, so it converts it to fat.

But eat too many calories, regardless of whether its fat, carbs or protien, and you'll get fat (although a low fat low carb diet will likely kill you do to ammonia build up from using protien for energy).

Not Chipotle? :-(

[Ignatius D'Lusional]

Aw man... and here I've been trying to convince people that Chipotle is the new Umami!

Re:taste vs smell

[OrangeCatholic]

Yeah, modern bioscience is so advanced, they added another flavor. I wonder when they will get around to adding flavors such as: Apple, pear, cinnamon, nutmeg, grape, cherry, beef, pork, lemon, chicken breast, turkey thigh, cola, chocolate, strawberry, chalk, plastic, metal, wood, carrot, lettuce, orange, bleach, beer, seltzer, coffee, milk, cheese, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, flour, salmon, tuna, calcium disodium EDTA, MSG, sodium tripolyphosphate, vinegar, tomatoes, ethanol, and puke.

I just threw up in my mouth a little...and it's some combination of sweet, sour, salty, umami, and fat! Hooray for modern understanding!

Re:taste vs smell

[iroll]

I'm sure you're just being funny, but if they find a chemical receptor in the mouth that is specifically activated by an "apple" flavor molecule, then yes, yes they will.