Abstract
The food oral processing model proposed by Hutchings and Lillford (J Texture Stud, 1988) and texture profile analysis (TPA) have been widely used, perhaps because they are easy to apply and understand. However, many misunderstanding and errors arise from their utilization and definitions.
Hutchings and Lillford model depicts the oral processing of foods just after the ingestion, and is widely cited, though the details are not specified in their model. TPA has been widely used because it is easy, however it may result in careless mistakes and misunderstandings. We discuss the two models with examples.
An example of where the models do not hold is the oral processing of sesame pastes where the hardness increases through absorption of water from saliva. We suggest that cohesiveness defined by TPA is illogical especially for fluid foods, and should be corrected with the cohesiveness used in powder and granular food cookery. The breakup length in the fluid extension test seems to be a good index to represent cohesiveness. In foods for elderly, fluids of high viscosity have been believed to be safe, but cohesiveness should also be taken into account for prevention of aspiration.
