Cognitive and Behavioral Factors Differentially Related to Intuitive Eating. (29th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tsotsoros, Cindy; Keirns, Natalie; Koemel, Nicholas; Keirns, Bryant; Hawkins, Misty
• Is Part Of: Current developments in nutrition. Volume 4(2020)Supplement 2
• Page Start: 1237
• Page End: 1237
• Publication Date: 2020-05-29
• Subjects: Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Nutrition; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; 612.3
• DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzaa057_053
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2475-2991

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Inhibitory control measured by the Go/No-Go Task measures automatic inhibition. Difficulty with inhibition can extend into eating behavior, leading to unhealthy patterns such as emotional eating. Individuals who eat emotionally may also be less likely to engage in adaptive patterns of eating, such as intuitive eating (IE). IE is based on internal regulation of eating behaviors rather than eating for non-physiological reasons (e.g., emotions). This study sought to investigate the relationship between inhibitory control, emotional eating, and IE. Methods: 108 adults with overweight/obesity enrolled in a weight loss trial participated in the study. The sample was 46 ± 11 years old, 72% female, 76% White, and had a mean BMI of 35.7 ± 5.9 kg/m 2 . All data were collected at the baseline assessment visit. Emotional eating and IE were measured via self-report with the Emotional Eating Scale (EES) and Intuitive Eating Scale-2 (IES-2), respectively. The EES provides a total score and the IES-2 provides a total score and four subscale scores: Unconditional Permission to Eat (PERM), Eating for Physical Rather than Emotional Reasons (PHYS), Reliance on Hunger and Satiety Cues (REL), and Body-Food Choice Congruence (CON). Inhibitory control was measured via behavioral tests with the Automated Neuropsychological Assessments Metrics-4 (ANAM-4) Go/No-Go subtest. Results: A theoretically-driven path analysis model was calculated using AMOS, using the Go/No-Go subtest and EES as determinates of the four IE subscales. Overall, the path model was effective at capturing variability in two (PHYS & REL) of the four outcome variables. Substantial differences were observed in terms of the magnitude of the path coefficients (PERM ß = .04; PHYS ß = –.74) and the amount of variance captured across the IES-2 subscales criterion measure ( R 2 ranged from .00—.54). The overall fit indices for the model were above threshold: χ 2 (7) = 2.19, P = .95, χ 2 /DF = 0.31, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.20, and RMSEA = .000 (.000; .011). Conclusions: These findings help shed light on how inhibitory control, emotional eating, and IE are associated with one another. Surprisingly, inhibitory control was unrelated to IE. Further, emotional eating may only contribute to certain facets of IE — eating for physical rather than emotional reasons and reliance on hunger and satiety cues. Funding Sources: K23DK103941.