Sweetness Adaptation: Does Food Taste Sweeter After Cutting Sugar?
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 29, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Yes, food can taste sweeter after you cut back on sugar, but that effect is not guaranteed, does not happen on a universal timetable, and is often described too confidently online. A small controlled diet study found that adults who substantially reduced simple sugars rated sweet puddings as more intensely sweet after two to three months, while their pleasantness ratings did not change. That 2016 study is real evidence for a change in perceived intensity under one specific dietary intervention.
The strongest recent counterweight is a much larger randomized trial. In the 2026 Sweet Tooth Trial, 180 healthy adults were assigned to low, regular, or high sweet-taste exposure for six months. The groups clearly differed in exposure to sweet foods and drinks, yet researchers found no group differences in sweet-taste liking, perceived sweetness intensity, sweet-food choice, energy intake, or body weight. That means the popular claim that a low-sweetness diet reliably “resets your taste buds” is not established.
The best answer is therefore more interesting than a slogan: sweetness perception is plastic enough to change under some conditions, acute sensory adaptation is well established, and people often notice practical changes in how foods taste when their diets change. But long-term dietary sweetness, perceived intensity, liking, preference, wanting, and craving are different outcomes. Research does not support collapsing all of them into one idea called a palate reset. For the separate question of whether greater sugar or sweet exposure increases later wanting, see Does Eating More Sugar Make You Want More Sweetness?.
Quick answer: does food taste sweeter after cutting sugar?
Sometimes. The clearest controlled evidence comes from Wise and colleagues, who asked healthy adults to reduce their usual calories from simple sugars by about 40% for three months, replacing those calories with fats, proteins, and complex carbohydrates. By the third intervention month, the reduced-sugar group rated puddings at both lower and higher sucrose concentrations roughly 40% sweeter than controls. The effect was weaker for beverages, and perceived pleasantness did not shift.
Yet a larger and more recent six-month randomized trial found no corresponding change. Čad and colleagues manipulated dietary sweet-taste exposure much more broadly, including sweetness from sugars, low-calorie sweeteners, fruits, and dairy, and found no change in sweetness intensity perception or liking across the low-, regular-, and high-exposure groups.
So the scientifically defensible answer is not “your taste buds reset in two weeks.” It is that some forms of dietary change can alter sweetness intensity judgments, but the effect is inconsistent across studies, foods, and experimental designs. There is no validated countdown after which ordinary food suddenly becomes sweeter for everyone.
What sweetness adaptation actually means
The phrase sweetness adaptation is used in two different ways, and much confusion begins there. Sensory scientists use taste adaptation for a short-term reduction in perceived intensity while a taste stimulus is repeated or sustained. Popular nutrition writing often uses adaptation to mean a longer-term shift in what tastes sweet, what level of sweetness seems normal, or what a person prefers after changing the diet.
Acute sensory adaptation happens during seconds or minutes
In sensory science, adaptation usually means that a continuing or repeatedly presented stimulus becomes less intense. In a classic real-food experiment, Theunissen and colleagues found that perceived sweetness declined while participants ate sweetened yogurt. This is a within-eating-episode phenomenon: the same sweet stimulus can feel less intense as exposure continues.
Laboratory work also shows that the size of this effect depends on how the stimulus reaches the mouth. A second Theunissen study found more adaptation with sustained filter-paper stimulation than with sipping or flow methods. Ordinary eating continually changes contact, saliva, aroma release, temperature, and mouth movement, so laboratory adaptation cannot simply be translated into a fixed “palate reset” schedule.
Long-term dietary change is better described as taste plasticity
Across days, weeks, or months, researchers are asking a different question: can habitual diet alter sensory responsiveness or food preference? A 2025 scoping review of taste plasticity concluded that diet-induced changes are biologically plausible and supported in multiple experimental settings, while emphasizing major open questions about the concentration, timing, mechanism, and nutritional consequences of exposure.
That longer-term plasticity can involve peripheral receptor function, neural processing, learned comparison standards, familiarity, attention, expectations, and the food environment. It should not be reduced to the idea that old taste buds die and new ones are born with a lower sugar setting.
The key evidence: one study found stronger sweetness, a larger trial did not
Two controlled human studies are especially useful because they prevent a common error: treating personal anecdotes as if they establish a universal biological rule.
The 2016 low-sugar study
The 2016 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition study followed healthy adults for five months. After a baseline month, one group received a diet designed to reduce simple-sugar intake substantially for three months, while a control group maintained its usual intake. Each month, participants rated vanilla puddings and raspberry beverages that varied in sucrose concentration.
No systematic group difference appeared during baseline or the first diet month. During the second month, low-sugar participants rated some lower-sucrose puddings as more intensely sweet. During the third month, their pudding sweetness ratings were about 40% higher than controls across concentrations. Beverage effects were weaker. Crucially, pleasantness did not change.
This matters because perceived sweetness intensity and liking are different psychological measurements. A food can taste sweeter without becoming more liked, less liked, more craved, or easier to stop eating. The study supports sensory change under a particular low-sugar intervention; it does not establish a universal reduction in sweet preference.
The 2026 Sweet Tooth Trial
The Sweet Tooth Trial randomized 180 healthy adults to six months of low, regular, or high exposure to sweet-tasting foods and beverages. About half of daily energy needs were supported with study-provided foods, and the percentage of sweet-tasting provided foods differed sharply between groups. Sweetness sources included sugars, low-calorie sweeteners, fruit, and dairy.
Despite successful separation of sweet exposure between groups, the trial found no differences from baseline to six months in sweet-taste liking, sweetness intensity perception, sweet-food choice, energy intake, body weight, or measured cardiometabolic markers. After the intervention, participants also tended to return toward their baseline sweet-food intake.
For the specific question “Does lowering sweet exposure retrain people to like less sweetness?”, this is powerful negative evidence. It does not prove that no individual ever experiences a shift. It does show that a large, sustained manipulation did not create the broad group-level effect that the palate-reset story predicts.
Why the studies are not actually contradictory
The interventions were different. Wise and colleagues reduced intake of simple sugars and tested specific puddings and beverages. The Sweet Tooth Trial manipulated total exposure to sweet taste across a much broader diet, regardless of whether sweetness came from sugars, low-calorie sweeteners, fruit, or dairy. The studies also differed in size, duration, test foods, exposure definitions, and outcomes.
The reasonable synthesis is therefore conditional. Reduced sugar intake may heighten sweetness intensity judgments in some foods or circumstances. Reducing overall dietary sweetness does not reliably produce a generalized shift in liking or sweetness perception across a population.
There is no proven two-week, three-week, or four-week taste-bud reset
Search results are full of precise timelines: two weeks, 21 days, a month. Those numbers sound biological, but the human evidence does not establish a universal threshold. The 2016 low-sugar study did not show a systematic group difference in the first month and detected its clearer pudding effect in months two and three. The 2026 trial found no group difference after six months.
The broader systematic literature points in the same direction. A 2018 systematic review identified 21 human studies and found a small, heterogeneous evidence base. Controlled studies sometimes suggested that higher sweet exposure reduces subsequent sweet preference in the short term, while longer-term effects were limited and inconsistent.
An updated 2024 review likewise concluded that sustained sweet-taste exposure has generally produced no significant or inconsistent effects on generalized sweetness liking. Acute exposure often reduces subsequent desire for sweetness rather than increasing it. These findings make a single countdown to “reset” scientifically implausible.
People can still notice changes after a few weeks. That experience can be genuine. What research cannot currently justify is turning that personal timescale into a biological law for everyone.
Cutting sugar is not the same as reducing exposure to sweet taste
This distinction is essential. Sugar is a chemical and nutritional category. Sweetness is a sensory quality. They overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
Under the U.S. Nutrition Facts framework, FDA defines Added Sugars as sugars added during processing as well as certain packaged sweeteners, syrups, honey, and sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices, while naturally occurring sugars in milk, fruits, and vegetables are not counted as Added Sugars. Total Sugars include both naturally occurring and added sugars.
WHO uses the broader public-health category free sugars, which includes added sugars plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices, and fruit juice concentrates. These definitions concern dietary sugar intake, not the total amount of sweet taste a person experiences.
A person can reduce added sugar while continuing to consume strongly sweet foods made with non-sugar sweeteners. A person can also reduce overall sweetness exposure while still eating naturally occurring sugars in fruit or dairy. A study about sugar intake therefore cannot automatically answer a study question about sweet-taste exposure, and vice versa.
For the ingredient and nutrition map behind these distinctions, see Added Sugar: What It Is, Where It Hides, and How Labels Count It.
Sweetness intensity, liking, preference, wanting, and craving are different things
A major reason online discussions become muddled is that several psychological outcomes are treated as synonyms. They are not.
Sweetness intensity asks how strong the sweet sensation seems. Liking asks how pleasant a person finds it. Preference compares alternatives or concentrations. Wanting concerns motivation to obtain or consume something. Craving is a more specific, often vivid desire that can involve cues, expectations, habits, emotional state, hunger, and learned reward.
The distinction is visible directly in the evidence. Wise et al. observed higher sweetness intensity ratings without a change in pleasantness. The Sweet Tooth Trial found no group shift in either liking or intensity after sustained manipulation of sweet-taste exposure.
This is why “less sugar made strawberries taste sweeter” does not mean “my sugar cravings disappeared,” and “this soda now tastes too sweet” does not establish that a person has become biologically less motivated by sweet food. Sensory judgment and motivational behavior can move together, move separately, or remain unchanged.
What happens to sweetness during a bite, a snack, or a meal
Long-term dietary adaptation gets most of the attention, but short-term sensory change is much better established. A continuous sweet stimulus can become less intense while it is present, and repeated bites can alter moment-to-moment perception.
In sweetened yogurt, sweetness intensity declined over the course of eating. Yet adaptation in a real food was only weakly related to adaptation measured using a filter-paper method, highlighting how saliva, chewing, odor, temperature, and changing contact patterns shape real eating.
More recent work has extended this question across sweetener types. A 2025 human-and-rodent study reported adaptation across repeated trials for glucose and fructose and stronger adaptation for sucralose under the tested conditions. Habitual low-calorie-sweetener use was not associated with different adaptation in that study.
This acute decline in sweetness is almost the mirror image of the popular long-term claim. During sustained exposure, sweetness can fade. After a dietary change, some people report that less-sweet foods become more noticeable or that previously preferred products seem excessively sweet. These are distinct processes occurring on different timescales.
How the mouth and brain create sweetness
Sweetness begins when sweet compounds interact with sensory machinery in the mouth. Classic human receptor research identified the T1R2/T1R3 receptor pair as a central receptor complex responsive to diverse natural and synthetic sweeteners. Receptor activation is then transformed into neural signaling and processed by the nervous system.
For the full receptor-to-brain explanation, see Why Does Sugar Taste Sweet? Receptors, Brain Signals, and Perception. The crucial point for adaptation is that the experienced intensity of sweetness is not a direct readout of grams of sugar. It is a percept generated from sensory input in context.
The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders explains that flavor combines taste with aroma, temperature, texture, and other oral sensations. A change in what someone calls “sweetness” may therefore reflect more than a change in one receptor signal.
Why fruit or plain foods may seem sweeter after a dietary change
People often report that berries, carrots, milk, plain yogurt, or unsweetened foods reveal more sweetness after highly sweet foods become less prominent in the diet. That experience is plausible, but it does not require a single mechanism called a taste-bud reset.
One mechanism is comparison. Sensory judgments are made against recent experience and context. A moderately sweet food sampled after very sweet foods occupies a different perceptual context than the same food sampled after weeks of less intense sweetness.
Another mechanism is multisensory integration. A major review of sweetness perception found that aroma, color, texture, and other intrinsic and extrinsic sensory cues can influence perceived sweetness. Fruit is not experienced as dissolved sugar alone: volatile aromas, acidity, texture, temperature, ripeness cues, and expectation contribute to the total flavor.
Attention can change too. When added sweetness is reduced, a person may pay more attention to fruit aroma, acidity, bitterness, creaminess, or subtle sweetness that had previously been overshadowed. Familiarity with the new version can also increase even when measured sweetness sensitivity does not change.
So “fruit tastes sweeter now” can be a real perceptual report without proving that sweet receptors became permanently more sensitive. Perception is the output of the whole sensory and cognitive system.
Do non-sugar sweeteners prevent sweetness adaptation?
There is no solid basis for a blanket claim that using non-sugar sweeteners prevents the palate from adapting, nor for the opposite claim that all non-sugar sweeteners retrain it. The category contains chemically diverse substances, and sugar intake and sweet-taste exposure are separate variables.
The 2025 adaptation study found that sucralose produced stronger short-term adaptation than glucose or fructose in its repeated-exposure protocol, while habitual low-calorie-sweetener users did not differ from non-habitual users in adaptation. That result concerns acute perception, not a universal long-term dietary outcome.
The 2026 Sweet Tooth Trial deliberately manipulated sweet-taste exposure from multiple sources, including low-calorie sweeteners, and still found no group-level change in sweetness liking or intensity perception. The evidence therefore does not support a simple rule in which keeping sweet taste in the diet necessarily blocks a future reduction in sweet preference.
Someone may choose non-sugar sweeteners to reduce added sugar, reduce calories in a particular product, or preserve a preferred taste. Someone else may deliberately reduce overall sweetness because they want less-sweet foods to feel more familiar. Those are different goals and should not be confused.
The psychology of adapting to less-sweet food
Even when receptor sensitivity does not measurably change, eating can become easier or more enjoyable through learning. Repeated experience changes familiarity. Expectations become more accurate. The contrast between the old and new version becomes less salient. Habits reorganize around the new default.
Familiarity changes what feels normal
A cereal, coffee, yogurt, or sauce with less sweetness may initially seem incomplete because it violates a learned sensory expectation. Repetition can make the revised version familiar. Familiarity is not identical to increased sweetness sensitivity; it is a change in the relationship between expectation and experience.
Expectation can change perception
Sweetness is part of multisensory flavor rather than an isolated meter. Research reviewed by Wang and colleagues shows that cues such as aroma, color, texture, packaging, and context can shift sweetness judgments. If someone expects a food to be less sweet, notices different aromas, or changes how it is served, the same sugar concentration may be experienced differently.
Individual differences are expected
People differ in baseline sweet sensitivity, preferred sweetness, diet history, age, smell function, medication use, smoking history, oral health, and the foods used to test perception. A person can also change one dimension without changing another. This variability is one reason a universal palate-reset timeline performs poorly as a scientific claim.
Can you deliberately make less-sweet food easier to enjoy?
Yes, but the strongest claim is behavioral rather than magical: you can change the food environment and repeated experience so that lower-sweetness versions become familiar and useful to you. Research does not guarantee that this will permanently lower your preferred sweetness level.
A gradual step-down is one practical method. If you sweeten coffee, tea, oatmeal, yogurt, or another repeated food, reducing the amount in small increments preserves continuity while changing the default. The point is not that a particular weekly schedule has been proven to reprogram taste receptors. The point is that repeated exposure makes the new version familiar and lets you observe your own sensory response.
A direct switch also works for some people. There is no high-quality evidence showing that gradual reduction is universally superior to abrupt reduction for sweetness adaptation. Choose the method that makes the intended dietary change practical without treating discomfort, craving, or preference as proof of addiction.
Compare like with like. If you want to know whether your sweetness perception is changing, occasionally compare the same product or recipe at the same temperature and with similar aroma and texture. Otherwise, changes in brand, ripeness, acidity, serving temperature, or flavoring can masquerade as a change in sweet sensitivity.
Use aroma and texture deliberately. Vanilla, fruit aromas, warming spices, creaminess, and other flavor cues can change the experience of sweetness without necessarily adding more sugar. This is a sensory-design strategy, not evidence that the ingredients literally contain more sweetness. For the dedicated evidence on how smell changes perceived sweetness, see Sugar and Smell: How Aroma Changes Perceived Sweetness.
If your goal is specifically to reduce added sugar, use the Nutrition Facts Added Sugars line and ingredient information rather than relying on taste alone. A food can taste very sweet with little or no added sugar, and a food that does not taste dramatically sweet can still contain added sugar.
What the evidence supports, what is plausible, and what remains contested
Established: acute sweet-taste adaptation
Repeated or sustained sweet stimulation can reduce perceived intensity over short periods, and this has been demonstrated in both laboratory and real-food paradigms. Theunissen's yogurt study and the 2025 sweetener-adaptation study are direct examples.
Supported but not universal: dietary change can alter intensity judgments
The 2016 reduced-sugar trial supports the possibility that substantial reduction in simple sugars can increase perceived sweetness intensity for some foods after months of exposure. The effect was food-dependent and did not change pleasantness.
Not supported as a general rule: less sweet exposure automatically lowers sweet liking
The 2018 systematic review, 2024 evidence review, and 2026 randomized trial do not support the simple idea that sustained exposure to less sweetness reliably causes people to prefer less sweetness.
Contested or oversimplified: the palate-reset countdown
A fixed two-, three-, or four-week reset is not established by controlled human evidence. Taste cells are biologically dynamic, but cell turnover is not a stopwatch for preference, craving, liking, or generalized sweetness intensity.
Sweetness adaptation is not sugar withdrawal, addiction, or a blood-glucose diagnosis
Changes in taste perception should stay in their proper domain. If a food tastes sweeter after a dietary change, that is a sensory observation. It does not diagnose an addiction, prove withdrawal, identify an eating disorder, or reveal a blood-glucose problem.
Likewise, a strong desire for dessert is not the same variable as sweetness detection. Craving can involve hunger, routines, cue exposure, stress, sleep, availability, learned reward, social context, and emotion. Those mechanisms deserve their own evidence rather than being inferred from taste intensity.
This article therefore stays with the owned intent: sensory and perceptual adaptation around sweetness. Blood glucose readings, fasting glucose, A1C, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, diabetes targets, and personalized glucose management belong to medical contexts rather than to sweetness-adaptation guidance.
A practical interpretation for everyday eating
If you reduce sugar and later notice that your old yogurt, soda, cereal, dessert, or coffee recipe tastes unusually sweet, the experience is plausible. It may reflect a changed sensory response, a changed comparison standard, familiarity with a less-sweet version, greater attention to other flavors, or several mechanisms at once.
If nothing starts tasting sweeter, that is also compatible with the evidence. The largest long-term randomized trial to date did not find a generalized shift in sweet intensity or liking after six months of markedly different sweet-taste exposure.
The useful goal is therefore not to chase a mythical reset date. Decide what you are trying to change. Reducing added sugar is a nutritional goal. Reducing overall sweetness exposure is a sensory choice. Learning to enjoy a particular less-sweet food is a familiarity and preference goal. Managing cravings is a behavioral goal. They can overlap, but each requires its own evidence and measurement.
Frequently asked questions
Does food really taste sweeter after cutting sugar?
It can. One controlled study found stronger sweetness intensity ratings after two to three months of a substantially reduced-simple-sugar diet, especially for puddings. A larger six-month randomized trial of low versus regular versus high sweet-taste exposure found no difference in sweetness intensity. The effect is therefore possible, not guaranteed.
How long does it take for taste buds to adjust to less sugar?
There is no scientifically established universal timeline. Claims such as two weeks or 21 days are more precise than the evidence allows. In the 2016 low-sugar trial, the clearer effect emerged during months two and three; in the 2026 trial, six months of different sweet exposure did not change perceived intensity.
Can fruit taste sweeter after I reduce added sugar?
Yes, some people report that experience, and it is plausible. Fruit sweetness is integrated with aroma, acidity, texture, temperature, ripeness, expectation, and recent sensory context. The experience does not by itself prove that sweet receptors became more sensitive.
Does quitting added sugar reset taste buds?
“Reset” is not a precise sensory-science term for this process. Reducing added sugar changes a nutritional exposure. It may also lower sweet-taste exposure, but only if the removed sweetness is not replaced by other sweet foods or sweeteners. Human trials do not show a universal reset.
Will foods I used to like start tasting too sweet?
That can happen to an individual, but it is not inevitable. A changed comparison standard, altered intensity perception, familiarity with less-sweet versions, and expectation can all contribute. Population-level evidence does not show that everyone develops a lower preferred sweetness.
Do artificial or non-sugar sweeteners stop the palate from adapting?
Evidence does not support a blanket rule. Different sweeteners produce different sensory responses, and a 2025 adaptation study found no difference in acute adaptation between habitual and non-habitual low-calorie-sweetener users. The 2026 Sweet Tooth Trial also did not find that lower overall sweet exposure changed generalized liking.
Is sweetness adaptation the same as having fewer sugar cravings?
No. Perceived intensity, liking, preference, wanting, and craving are distinct outcomes. A food may taste sweeter without becoming less wanted. The 2016 trial is a clear example: intensity changed while pleasantness did not.
Should I reduce sugar gradually or all at once?
There is no strong evidence that one approach universally produces better sweetness adaptation. Gradual reduction can be convenient because it changes a familiar food in smaller steps. Abrupt reduction can also be workable. The better method is the one that fits the actual goal and is sustainable for the individual.
Does sweetness adaptation mean my blood sugar is changing?
No. Sensory sweetness and blood glucose are different domains. How sweet a food tastes cannot be used to infer glucose readings, A1C, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, or diabetes control.
The bottom line
Food may taste sweeter after cutting sugar, and controlled research shows that this can occur under some dietary conditions. The phenomenon is more nuanced than a “taste buds reset” story. Acute sensory adaptation is well established. Longer-term taste plasticity is plausible and sometimes measurable. Generalized reductions in sweet liking after lowering sweet exposure are not reliably demonstrated.
The most important distinction is between intensity and desire. You can perceive more sweetness without liking sweetness less. You can reduce added sugar without reducing all sweet-taste exposure. You can become familiar with less-sweet foods without undergoing a biological reset. Once those distinctions are kept intact, the science becomes clearer and the practical advice becomes more useful.
Related Articles
Why Does Sugar Taste Sweet? Receptors, Brain Signals, and Perception — the receptor-to-brain explanation of how sweetness is created.
Added Sugar: What It Is, Where It Hides, and How Labels Count It — the U.S. labeling and nutrition meaning of added sugar, which is separate from total sweet-taste exposure.
Sugar: What It Is, Types, Uses, Health, and Psychology — the broad English Hub guide to sugar chemistry, food use, health context, and psychology.
References
Appleton, K. M., Tuorila, H., Bertenshaw, E. J., de Graaf, C., & Mela, D. J. (2018). Sweet taste exposure and the subsequent acceptance and preference for sweet taste in the diet: systematic review of the published literature. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 107(3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqx031
Čad, E. M., Mars, M., Pretorius, L., van der Kruijssen, M., Tang, C. S., de Jong, H. B. T., Balvers, M., Appleton, K. M., & de Graaf, K. (2026). The Sweet Tooth Trial: A parallel randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of a 6-month low, regular, or high dietary sweet taste exposure on sweet taste liking, and various outcomes related to food intake and weight status. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 123(1), 101073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.09.041
Li, X., Staszewski, L., Xu, H., Durick, K., Zoller, M., & Adler, E. (2002). Human receptors for sweet and umami taste. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(7), 4692–4696. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.072090199
Mela, D. J., & Risso, D. (2024). Does sweetness exposure drive ‘sweet tooth’? British Journal of Nutrition, 131(11), 1934–1944. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114524000485
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Taste Disorders. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/taste-disorders
Okoye, S. I., Kim, M., Petty, S., Choi, M., & Pepino, M. Y. (2025). Sweet Taste Adaptation to Sugars, Sucralose, and Their Blends: A Human and Rodent Perspective. Nutrients, 17(19), 3075. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17193075
Sung, H., Heaton, E., & Dus, M. (2025). Taste Plasticity in Nutrition and Health: A Scoping Review. Nutrients, 17(8), 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17081336
Theunissen, M. J., Kroeze, J. H., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2000). Method of stimulation, mouth movements, concentration, and viscosity: effects on the degree of taste adaptation. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(3), 607–614. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212112
Theunissen, M. J., Polet, I. A., Kroeze, J. H., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2000). Taste adaptation during the eating of sweetened yogurt. Appetite, 34(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0275
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Added Sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label. https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/added-sugars-nutrition-facts-label
Wang, Q. J., Mielby, L. A., Junge, J. Y., Bertelsen, A. S., Kidmose, U., Spence, C., & Byrne, D. V. (2019). The Role of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Sensory Factors in Sweetness Perception of Food and Beverages: A Review. Foods, 8(6), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8060211
Wise, P. M., Nattress, L., Flammer, L. J., & Beauchamp, G. K. (2016). Reduced dietary intake of simple sugars alters perceived sweet taste intensity but not perceived pleasantness. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 103(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.112300
World Health Organization. (2015). Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549028