Are You a Supertaster?

Yeah, just bitter usually indicates a "medium taster." If you were a super taster you'd probably find it "repulsively bitter."

 

A necessary but not sufficient condition.

 

I think my palate is pretty much unrefined and quite unremarkable, I just know what I like and what I don't. It's also the reason why I haven't done much in the way of reviews, that and my spectrum is quite narrow. I love sour, I love salty, but I don't like sours or Gose. I don't like funk , so Hops like Moasic and Simcoe singularly don't work for me, for the most part Brett doesn't work, although I've had a Weed Brett IPA that was interesting. I'm kinda sensitive to old malty IPAs, I find them repulsive and a drain pour. But there's 1000 guys here with the same thought, not very unique at all.

 

What other condition are you thinking of, the papillae count?

 

Yes, higher sensitivity is part of it.

If you can taste PTC or PROP, you are part of the 75-80% that can. There are not that many super tasters.

 

I am awful at it but when I see what someone else says on BA reviews I think to myself, "wow, yea I defiantly taste that but I never could put my finger on it."

 

Wasn't there a thread on supertasters years ago? Anyone here long enough to remember that?

 

Hmm, do you have a link? The researcher who first identified supertasters puts the estimate at close to 25% and that seems to be pretty widely accepted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/articles/senses/supertaster.shtml

 

25% super tasters and 50% medium tasters can taste PTC. The 25% non tasters can't.

 

Then we agree--25% Supertasters.

And their reaction to the test chemicals is generally much stronger than for the medium tasters. But I'd apply the word "many" to 25%. Which is where I think the difference in interpretation of wording comes in.

 

Oh, it was there are not 75% super tasters "many", only 25% super tasters many. This was in response to those early on saying that they tasted PTC/PROP, and were therefore super tasters. Well, just because you get the bitterness, it may not be so.

Edit, being a super taster may not be a good thing for beer tasting. IBUs, roasted bitter grains, and astringent/tannin flavors would be off putting.

 

I have a poor sense of smell from a couple of years working with solvents and strong cleaning chemicals. I expect this also makes it difficult for me to pick up subtle flavors. After I taste a new beer and decide what I am picking up, I always read the various reviews, and the nose and palate are all over the map - many quite contradictory.

 

Could be one of those Old Spice commercials----BEAR GLOVE!.....or whatever they are saying.

 

I do think that the term itself implies a definition to people who aren't already familiar with it. It sounds more like "I taste things so much better than you do", rather than "my sense of taste is so acute that it's often a problem". Given that people in general default to lazy context interpretation rather than looking things up, I'm not really surprised by the continual misuse (this may just be my inner cynic speaking).

If the term were something more akin to hyperosmia, I'd bet there would be significantly less misunderstanding and misuse. There is the term hypergeusia out there, but that seems to refer to a somewhat different heightened-taste condition.

 

No disagreement here, but the sensory science researcher who identified and first worked on that phenomenon and with people having those sensitivities used the term "supertaster" as part of a simple categorization scheme to be used in the technical literature for differentiating between those identified as non-tasters, medium tasters and those who were supersensitive. As the research literature grew the term "stuck."

Since then, as we both recognize, the term has taken on a life of its own with people misusing it to mean "I taste things better than you." Unfortunately this is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) that a "technical" term meant for restricted use in a specific context gets picked up by the press and general public and acquires a distorted meaning when entering more widespread use outside its intended context. (This is an onging and particularly acute problem for research areas working with understanding humans and their capabilities since the average person thinks they understand being human. After all, they are one, right? )

 

Too true. Much like "God particle". But less fun to have in one's physical makeup.