Comfort eating: An observational study of affect in the hours immediately before, and after, snacking

Lifetime stressor exposure is associated with greater rewarding effects of stress-related eating

Acute stressors tend to shift preferences toward comfort foods, yet they do not ubiquitously increase the amount of food consumed. Moreover, although many individuals eat more under stress, others eat less or show no change. Although the precise mechanisms explaining this variability in stress-related eating are unknown, they may be driven by individual differences in the rewarding effects of comfort eating, which are enhanced by greater lifetime stressor exposure. To investigate this possibility, we examined whether differences in lifetime stressor exposure predicted reductions in negative affect following snacking (i.e., negative reinforcement) and if this effect was specific to stress-related snacking or snacking in general. Participants were 26 women (23 % non-White) between 20 and 45 years old (M = 31), with a mean body mass index of 26, who completed three laboratory visits. Participants completed an assessment of lifetime stressor exposure (i.e., STRAIN) on the first visit and, on two subsequent laboratory visits in counterbalanced order, were given snacks after an acute social stress task (i.e., TSST) or rest period. Greater lifetime stressor exposure was related to greater post-ingestive decreases in negative affect following the acute social stressor but not following the rest period. If stress-related eating is more comforting for women with greater lifetime stressors and contributes to a stronger stress-eating association, then this may inform obesity-related clinical treatments that target behaviors and cognitions related to reward-based learning.

Why we don't eat as intended: Moderators of the short-term intention-behaviour relation in food intake

OBJECTIVES

A healthy diet is essential for preventing chronic disease and promoting overall health. Translating one's intention to eat healthy into actual behaviour has, however, proven difficult with a range of internal and contextual factors identified as driving eating behaviour.

DESIGN

We leverage Temporal Self-Regulation Theory to examine these momentary determinants' direct and moderating effects on the intention-behaviour relation with Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA).

METHODS

Eighty-seven healthy participants (mage = 24.1 years; 59 women, 28 men) reported, 5 times daily for 10 weekdays, their intentions to stick to a self-set dietary restriction goal for the next 3 hr, the goal congruency of their eating behaviour in the past 3 hr, and a range of factors potentially influencing food intake, such as stress, emotions and environmental eating cues.

RESULTS

Two-part multilevel modelling revealed that craving, availability of goal-incongruent foods, social eating cues, giving in to other temptations and weaker momentary intentions directly increased the risk and severity of goal-incongruent intake within the next 3 hr. Social cues, stress and craving further influence behaviour through altering intention implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results imply that people regularly fail to implement intentions for 3-hr periods and that a range of factors influences this, both directly and by disrupting intentional processes. While for some barriers, fostering strong intentions throughout the day could be beneficial, others require different strategies for dietary adherence.

Relationship between attentional bias and stimulus control: An observational study of real-world eating patterns

BACKGROUND

Attentional bias towards food related stimuli has been proposed as a potential target for dieting intervention, however the evidence supporting a relationship between attentional bias and food intake is mixed. Theory holds that food related attentional bias should be positively associated with measures of stimulus-controlled eating, and that implicit processes such as impulsivity moderate this association. The aim of the present study was to examine whether the proposed relationship between food-related attentional bias and stimulus control exists, and whether it is moderated by impulsivity.

METHOD

A community sample of 68 participants completed a food-related attentional bias task and impulsiveness scale during a laboratory visit, after which they recorded their real-world eating in real-time over 14 days using Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA). During this time, participants also responded to 4-5 randomly timed assessments per day. Food outlet presence (e.g., fast food restaurants, cafes, corner stores etc.) was assessed during both eating and non-eating assessments. EMA data was then used to determine levels of stimulus controlled eating for each participant.

FINDINGS

Substantial variation was seen in both our measure of both food-related attentional bias (Range: 33.9 to 80.0) and in the degree to which the participant's eating could be categorised as being under stimulus control (Range: 0.50 to 0.93). However, food-related attentional bias scores were not a significant independent predictor of stimulus control and nor was this relationship moderated by impulsivity.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to theoretical predictions, we found no evidence that of an association between attentional bias, impulsivity, and stimulus control. More work is needed to better understand the implicit processes underlying eating behaviour in the real-world.

Do nutrition knowledge, food preferences, and habit strength moderate the association between preference for intuition and deliberation in eating decision-making and dietary intake?

An intuitive style in eating decision-making, for example, basing decisions on one's gut feeling, has been related to a less healthy diet, whereas deliberately deciding what to eat, such as making plans about eating behavior, has been related to a healthier diet. The present study investigated whether nutrition knowledge, food preferences, and habit strength for healthy and unhealthy eating moderate these relationships. In total, 1245 participants took part in a preregistered cross-sectional online survey. Results revealed that neither nutrition knowledge, nor liking of healthy or unhealthy foods, nor habit strength for healthy or unhealthy eating interacted with the preference for intuition or deliberation in eating decision-making in affecting dietary intake (βs ≤ |.06|; ts ≤ |2.11|; ps ≥ .035). Instead, including the potential moderating variables in analyses rendered the effect of a preference for intuition largely non-significant. In contrast, the positive effect of a preference for deliberation was largely stable even when including the potential moderating variables. Thus, the present study confirms the general health-promoting effect of a preference for deliberation in eating decision-making. In contrast, results speak in favor of a generally minor role of a preference for intuition for healthy or unhealthy eating.

Bacon, Brownie, or Broccoli? Beliefs about Stress-Relieving Foods and Their Relationship to Orthorexia Nervosa

Background: Nutritional beliefs play an important role when it comes to food choice. However, little attention has been paid to which foods individuals believe to be comforting when experiencing stress. With increasing health awareness in the general public, this study aims to examine whether the nutritional belief exists that only healthy foods relieve stress. If so, we are interested in its relationship to Orthorexia Nervosa (ON) tendencies. Methods: 175 participants (mean age 28.5 ± 7.8 years, 124 females) completed questionnaires to assess beliefs about stress-relieving foods and ON tendencies. Principal component analysis was used to reduce foods to food groups. Subsequently, a latent profile analysis was performed to identify groups with distinct nutritional beliefs. Results: Among eight distinct groups, one group (8% of the sample) reported the belief that exclusively healthy foods relieve stress. Multinominal logistic regressions showed that higher ON tendencies were associated with that group. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that individuals with stronger ON tendencies believe that, in particular, healthy foods relieve stress. This indicates that nutritional beliefs in ON concern not only the somatic consequences of certain foods, but also psychological consequences, which might also drive orthorexic behaviour. This offers a new target for the diagnosis and treatment of ON.

Running a weight-management programme with a psychological focus within a lymphoedema service

Weight management and psychological health are intertwined. Patients in this context are often mindful of how to eat healthily and what they need to do to lose weight, but frequently self-sabotage, with external influences often impact any attempted weight-loss approach. Consequently, any form of lymphoedema management is also thwarted and vicious cycles between success and rebound occur. This article describes a 6-week weight-management programme that took place before the COVID-19 pandemic. The programme focused exclusively on the expectation that, if a patient's psychological health could be improved, weight reduction would occur as a result, and, in turn, any positive effects on adherence with lymphoedema treatments could be observed.

Highly processed food intake and immediate and future emotions in everyday life

Increased consumption of highly processed foods may result in lower diet quality, and low diet quality is associated with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer. One mechanism driving highly processed food intake is the expectation that eating these foods will improve emotional experiences, particularly in individuals with elevated "highly processed food addiction" symptoms. However, experimental findings about the emotional experiences following highly processed food intake are mixed. Furthermore, prior studies have generally failed to capture the potentially prolonged emotional effects of eating highly processed foods and not tested for individual differences. The present study was a preregistered archival data analysis of an ambulatory electronic diary study that captured real-life emotions following highly processed food intake. Multilevel modeling was used to predict the effects of highly processed food intake on subsequent positive and negative emotions immediately, 1 h, and 3 h after consumption. Intake of sweet high-fat foods, fast foods, and non-alcoholic sugary drinks was associated with greater positive emotions immediately after eating, and sweet high-fat food intake remained associated with greater positive emotions 1 h later. Sweet high-fat food and non-alcoholic sugary drink intake were associated with fewer negative emotions 1 h after consumption, and the negative association between non-alcoholic sugary drink intake and negative emotions was stronger for those with elevated highly processed food addiction symptoms. Overall, results suggest that highly processed food intake results in small alterations in positive and negative emotions immediately and up to 1 h after intake; however, these do not persist through 3 h after intake. The ability of highly processed foods to briefly alter emotions may be key to their reinforcing nature.

Self-reported emotional eaters consume more food under stress if they experience heightened stress reactivity and emotional relief from stress upon eating

Group data means from individuals who self-assess as emotional eaters do not reliably show increased food intake in response to stress or negative emotions. This inconsistency in predictive validity of self-reported emotional eating (EE) could be attributable to unconsidered moderation of the relationship between self-reported EE and behavioral measures of EE. Greater emotional relief from stress by eating may provide enhanced negative reinforcement and promote future EE in response to stress as a form of self-medication. Thus, we predicted that greater emotional relief from stress by eating (decrease in negative affect from stress to post-eating) would moderate the extent to which heightened stress reactivity (measured by systolic blood pressure, SBP) moderates the relationship between self-reported EE and food intake post-stress. We also hypothesized that self-reported EE would not predict greater food consumption on the rest day. 43 undergraduate women completed online assessments of eating behaviors. Participants were given snacks to eat after a mental stress task (TSST) or rest period on separate days in counterbalanced order. Our prediction was supported, as the moderated moderation model (PROCESS model 3) was highly significant on the stress day. Self-reported EE predicted increased food intake post-stress only under conditions of high stress reactivity and high emotional relief. On the rest day, self-reported EE predicted greater snack food intake only when SBP was high. This conditional increased intake substantiates stress as a promoter of snack food consumption for women with greater EE. Overall, our findings identified factors that may distinguish the subset of self-reported emotional eaters who are more likely to display EE behaviors in a laboratory setting, yet further studies are needed to directly test whether negative reinforcement via emotional relief from stress by eating drives enhanced EE following stress.