The EAT-26 as screening instrument for clinical nutrition unit attenders

University of Udine, Udine, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy
International Journal of Obesity (Impact Factor: 5.39). 07/2006; 30(6):977-81. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803238
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to use the Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26) as a screening instrument on a specific population with a marked prevalence of binge eating disorder (BED) and eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS). The EAT-26 questionnaire was used in order to identify the high-risk subjects for referral to clinical evaluation.
EAT-26 was administered to 845 subjects who, for the first time, came to the Nutritional Medicine Service looking for a diet between January 1999 and December 2002. From this initial sample, subsequently, 250 subjects were randomly selected and administered a semistructured clinical interview for DSM-IV (SCID I, version 2.0).
Discriminant analysis provided a cutoff value of EAT-26=11. Logistic regression analysis indicated high Dieting (D) or Bulimia (B) subscale scores as a risk factor of EDNOS or bulimia nervosa (BN) cases, respectively; on the other hand, a high Oral Control (O) subscale score represented a protecting factor for BED cases.
Our study tried to assess the usefulness of EAT-26 as a screening instrument for obese patients attending a Medical Nutritional Service. Results from this study suggest that a cutoff score of 11, lower than that indicated in the literature, improves the diagnostic accuracy of the EAT-26 in a high-risk setting regarding sensibility level (68.1%) and leading to a reduction of the false negative rate (31.9%).

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For the consequences of our actions to guide behavior, the brain must represent different types of outcome-related information. For example, an outcome can be construed as negative because an expected reward was not delivered, or because an outcome of low value was delivered. Thus, behavioral consequences can differ in terms of the information they provide about outcome probability and value. We investigated the role of the striatum in processing probability-based and value-based negative feedback by training participants to associate cues with food rewards, and then employing a selective satiety procedure to devalue one food outcome. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we examined brain activity related to receipt of expected rewards, receipt of devalued outcomes, omission of expected rewards, omission of devalued outcomes, and expected omissions of an outcome. Nucleus accumbens activation was greater for rewarding outcomes than devalued outcomes, but activity in this region did not correlate with the probability of reward receipt. Activation of the right caudate and putamen, however, was largest in response to rewarding outcomes relative to expected omissions of reward. The dorsal striatum (caudate and putamen) at the time of feedback also showed a parametric increase correlating with the trial-wise probability of reward receipt. Our results suggest that the ventral striatum is sensitive to the motivational relevance, or subjective value, of the outcome, while the dorsal striatum codes for a more complex signal that incorporates reward probability. Value and probability information may be integrated in the dorsal striatum, to facilitate action planning and allocation of effort.
    Journal of Neurophysiology 10/2014; 113(1):jn.00086.2014. DOI:10.1152/jn.00086.2014 · 3.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Larger food portions lead to increased intake but the mechanism behind this effect is unclear. We investigated the effect of portion size on bite size, eating rate, deceleration rate, and meal duration. Thirty-seven overweight women attended 5 visits after a 3h fast and consumed a 229, 303, 400, 529 or 700g portion of a lunch meal in random order. Meal eating parameters were measured with the Sussex Ingestion Pattern Monitor. Data were analyzed with mixed effects models. Average bite size increased by 0.22g for every 100g increase in portion size (p=0.001); portion size had a non-linear effect on eating rate, increasing with portion sizes up to about 540g (p=0.01). Deceleration rate (reduction in speed of eating) decreased by 20% (p<0.001) and meal duration increased by 22.5% for every 100g increase in portion size (p<0.001), relative to the smallest portion. Increasing portion size led to a larger bite size and faster eating rate, but a slower reduction in eating speed during the meal. These changes may underlie greater energy intakes with exposure to large portions. Interventions to reduce bite size and slow eating rate may provide individuals with strategies to reduce the risk of overconsumption. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Physiology & Behavior 11/2014; 139C:297-302. DOI:10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.11.041 · 3.03 Impact Factor
  • Source


Available from