4.7 Article

Exploring the Relationship between Body Composition and Eating Behavior Using the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) in Young New Zealand Women

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu8070386

Keywords

TFEQ; eating behavior; obesity; body fat percentage; disinhibition; restraint; hunger; women; New Zealand

Funding

  1. Massey University Research Fund
  2. School of Food and Nutrition, Massey University, NZ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Obesity is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, yet is preventable. This study aimed to investigate associations between body mass index, body fat percentage and obesity-related eating behaviors. Women (n = 116; 18-44 years) were measured for height, weight and body fat using air displacement plethysmography (BodPod). Women completed the validated Three Factor Eating Questionnaire to assess their eating behaviors using Restraint, Disinhibition and Hunger eating factor categories and sub-categories. The eating behavior data were analyzed for associations with body mass index and body fat percentage, and comparisons across body mass index and body fat percentage categories (< vs. >= 25 kg/m(2); < vs. >= 30%, respectively). Women had a mean (standard deviation) body mass index of 23.4 (3.5) kg/m(2), and body fat percentage of 30.5 (7.6)%. Disinhibition was positively associated with both body mass index (p < 0.001) and body fat percentage (p < 0.001). Emotional Disinhibition was positively associated with body fat percentage (p < 0.028). Women with low Restraint and high Disinhibition had significantly higher body mass index and body fat percentage than women with high Restraint and low Disinhibition. Disinhibition seems likely to be an important contributor to obesity. Tailored intervention strategies focused on counteracting Disinhibition should be a key target area for managing weight/fat gain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available