Article

Association of Body Mass with Dietary Restraint and Disinhibition

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University
Appetite (Impact Factor: 2.52). 09/1995; 25(1):31-41. DOI: 10.1006/appe.1995.0039

ABSTRACT The relationship of disinhibition and dietary restraint with body mass was studied in a sample of 293 women. Results suggested that higher body mass was associated with an interaction of disinhibition and dietary restraint. The association of disinhibition with higher body mass was moderated by increased dietary restraint. Symptoms of an eating disorder were more strongly associated with disinhibition than with dietary restraint. These results suggest that dieting may moderate the increased body mass associated with overeating. Psychological and eating problems associated with dietary restraint were found to be of less significance than those associated with disinhibition.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Behavioral and personality characteristics are factors that may jointly regulate body weight. This study explored the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and self- reported behavioral and personality measures. These measures included eating behavior (based on theThree-Factor Eating Questionnaire; Stunkard and Messick, 1985), sensitivity to reward and punishment [based on the Behavioral Inhibition System/BehavioralActivation System (BIS/BAS) scales; Carver and White, 1994] and self-reported impulsivity (based on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11; Patton et al., 1995).We found an inverted U-shaped relationship between restrained eating and BMI. This relationship was moderated by the level of disinhibited eating. Independent of eating behavior, BIS and BAS responsiveness were associated with BMI in a gender-specific manner with negative relationships for men and positive relationships for women. Together, eating behavior and BIS/BAS responsiveness accounted for a substantial proportion of BMI variance (men: ∼25%, women: ∼32%). A direct relationship between self-reported impulsivity and BMI was not observed. In summary, our results demonstrate a system of linear and non-linear relationships between the investigated factors and BMI. Moreover, body weight status was not only associated with eating behavior (cognitive restraint and disinhibition), but also with personality factors not inherently related to an eating context (BIS/BAS). Importantly, these relationships differ between men and women.
    Frontiers in Psychology 09/2014; 5:1073. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01073 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to compare eating behaviors, body satisfaction, exercise, and life satisfaction between normal-weight and overweight postmenopausal women and to examine the predictors of disordered eating and life satisfaction among postmenopausal women (n = 294). The overweight group had more eating disordered behavior, more body dissatisfaction, and lower physical quality of life. The increase of age predicted less disordered eating. Higher BMI, the perception of an ideal weight lower than the current one, lower body satisfaction, and physical quality of life predicted disordered eating. Higher body satisfaction, less psychosocial discomfort, and a greater degree of sexual symptom discomfort predicted life satisfaction.
    Journal of Women & Aging 01/2015; 27(2):1-17. DOI:10.1080/08952841.2014.928496 · 0.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been limited research about disordered eating in middle-aged women, and to date, few data exist about restrained eating behavior in postmenopausal women. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine eating behavior with a specific focus on menopause as an associated factor in restrained eating. Beyond this, we were interested in how postmenopausal status and self-esteem would interact to determine eating patterns in women in middle age.
    International Journal of Eating Disorders 12/2014; 2(1):23. DOI:10.1186/s40337-014-0023-1 · 3.03 Impact Factor