When we say a supplement gummy or chew is “chewy,” we are describing a multi-phase tactile experience, not a single value. In texture analysis, chewiness is usually broken into three mechanical families: force, deformation, and recovery time.
The three sensory attributes being measured
- Force: This is the peak resistance at first bite and the ongoing force required during repeated chewing. It captures whether a product feels soft, firm, or tough at the front of the mouth.
- Deformation: This measures how far the material compresses, stretches, or yields before its structure changes. It includes strain at break and cohesiveness, the degree to which the product holds together under repeated compression instead of crumbling or dissolving.
- Recovery time: This measures how quickly and completely the product springs back after compression. It appears in texture analysis as springiness and resilience: a fast, high recovery creates bounce; a slow, incomplete recovery creates a dense or gummy collapse.
How the measurements combine
Instrumental chewiness is often calculated as hardness × cohesiveness × springiness, or described as the total energy required to masticate a solid product to a swallowing-ready state. That is why two products with the same initial bite force can feel completely different: one may snap back quickly and feel pleasantly chewy, while the other may deform and stay compressed, feeling pasty or tough.
Which one drives consumer preference?
No single mechanical attribute dominates across products. Consumers describe positive chewiness as a lively, bouncy resistance that returns between bites, and that spring-back quality separates a satisfying chew from a hard, rubbery block or a soft, mushy paste. Recovery still matters for that bounce, but the consumer data does not point to it as the strongest driver of liking.
A 2026 consumer study of fruit gum candies (147 consumers, 12 commercial products) found that texture, alongside taste, drove overall liking. Chewy gelatine-based candies received the highest overall liking, with mean ratings up to 7.3 on a nine-point hedonic scale. The authors identified hardness and stickiness as the key textural drivers of liking. Force sets the intensity of the first impression. Too much peak force with slow recovery reads as tough; high deformation with low recovery reads as doughy or sticky. The preferred texture is usually a balance of moderate initial force, enough deformation to feel substantial, and a fast, high recovery that extends the chew without exhausting the jaw.
The driver shifts with the base material
The same attribute can move liking in opposite directions depending on the gummy base. In the 2026 consumer study, higher perceived hardness reduced acceptance of gelatine-based candies but improved acceptance of starch- and pectin-based ones. Stickiness ran the other way: stickier plant-based candies were rated lower.
That split is the practical takeaway for a contract manufacturer. A pectin-based supplement gummy tuned to imitate a soft gelatine candy can land on the wrong side of both effects, reading as too soft and too sticky. A firmer pectin set is closer to what the consumer data supports. Set the chewiness target per base rather than copying it from one format to another.
At KorNutra, we treat chewiness as a multi-parameter target rather than a one-number specification. By profiling force, deformation, and recovery together, we can adjust a gummy or chew base to deliver the resilient, bouncy chew consumers prefer, without crossing into toughness or pastiness.