This study examined the relationship between taster status, food environment, and BMI. The researchers hypothesized that supertasters would have lower BMIs than non-tasters, and that food environment is another factor influencing BMI. Forty-one participants completed surveys on taster status, food environment, and had their BMI measured. A 2x3 ANOVA found no significant effects of taster status, environment, or their interaction on BMI. The researchers concluded that taster status and environment did not significantly impact BMI in this study. They suggested improvements such as using different measurement tools.

1. Relationship of Taster
Status to Food
Environment on BMI
By Horacio Ruiz & Kenneth Curiel
Research Methods EXSC 364
Department of Health and Exercise

2. Introduction
● Obesity
● 1/3 of United States adults and 17 percent of
children ages 2-19 are obese (CDC, 2014)
● Taster status awareness & food environment
identification may affect Body Mass Index levels
(BMI).

3. Hypothesis
● We hypothesized that most people who are
supertasters will have lower BMI’s than those
who are non-tasters. = satisfaction research
● However, we believe environment is the other
significant independent variable that also
contributes to the BMI calculation results.

4. Group Activity
Groups of 3: discuss
• Familiarity with Taster Status
• Talk about your own Food Environment
• (where are you from?)
• How have you used BMI in your own work?
• Some groups willing to volunteer by
reporting

6. Literature Review (Taster Status)
● Catanzaro, Chesbro and Velkey, found that approximately
25% of the human population that do not detect bitterness in
the response to 6-n-Propylthiouracil (PROP) are categorized
as non-tasters.
● Tasters in many studies have been shown to dislike foods that
are very bitter such as black coffee, grapefruit, and certain
vegetables (p. 787). – bitterness research
● In a study by Dinehart’s group the objective was to look at
why people do not consume vegetables based on sweetness or
bitterness of vegetables.

7. LR (Food Environment)
● Many factors other than biology and genetics
play a role in food preference.
● Early exposures to a variety of foods, health
beliefs, classically conditioned positive and
negative associations, observational learning, and
cognitive interpretations of sensory experiences
with various flavors.

8. LR Continued (BMI)
● According to the Centers for Diseases Control and
Prevention, body mass index is an ideal number that assesses
the fatness of most people accurately (CDC, 2015).
● It is relatively inexpensive and easy to perform when working
with unhealthy weight problems (CDC, 2015).

9. Vertex42.com BMI Graphic

10. From CDC

11. Demonstration
Solicit 3 volunteers for taster status

12. Methods
● Informed Consent and obtained IRB
approval
● 41 Participants 22 (M) 19 (F) Age:18-27
● Equipment
● Procedures

15. Freedman's Perceived Food Env. Qu.

17. Discuss in groups of 3 and Report
• What type of correlation (and how strong)
do you think will there be for Survey Score
on Food Environment and BMI?
• What type of correlation (and how strong)
do you think will there be for Perceived
Bitterness score and BMI?
• Will Food environment affect BMI?
• Will Taster status affect BMI?

18. Results
Dependent Variable = BMI
Independent Variables = Taster Status & Food
Environment
2 x 3 factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA)
No main effect was seen for environment status (F(1,39) = 0.01, p
= .91), for taster status (F(2,38) = 1.71, p = .20), or for the
interaction between them (F(2,38) = 0.09, p = .92)

22. Conclusions
The study showed that there was no significant
difference in BMI values for taster status and
environment.
Taster Status
Food Environment
BMI

23. What we would do different?
● Try using bioelectrical impedance
● Suggest using Geographic Information System
instead of a questionnaire
● Include amount of sleep and exercise as
independent variables

24. Ref. of Photos via Google Images
http://robinyap.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/research_word_in_dictionary_magni<ied_sepia-300x170.jpg
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-literature-review.png
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/fattest-states-2014-big.jpg
http://www.doctordisruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Blog3.1.jpg

25. References
About BMI for Adults. (2015, February 23). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
Burd, C., Senerat, A., Chambers, E., & Keller, K. (2013). PROP taster status interacts with the built environment to influence children's food
acceptance and body weight status. Obesity, 21(8), 786-794, doi:10.1002/oby.20059.
Catanzaro, D., Chesbro, E., & Velkey, A. (2013). Relationship between food preferences and PROP taster status of college students. Appetite, 68,
124-131.
Dinehart, M., Hayes, J., Bartoshuk, L., Lanier, S., & Duffy, V. (2005). Bitter taste markers explain variability in vegetable sweetness, bitterness, and
intake. Physiology & Behavior, 87, 304-313, doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.10.018.
Hall, S., & Getchell, N. (2014). Selecting statistical tests within research designs. In Research Methods in Kinesiology and the Health Sciences (1st
ed., pp. 246-261). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Wolters Kluwer Health.
Oftedal, K., & Tepper, B. (2013). Influence of the PROP bitter taste phenotype and eating attitudes on energy intake and weight status in pre-
adolescents: A 6-year follow-up study. Physiology & Behavior, 118, 103-111, doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.016.

26. Correlation Between BMI & Env. Sta.

27. Correlation Between BMI & Per. Bit.