4.3 Article

To Go or Not to Go: A Proof of Concept Study Testing Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Women with Eating and Weight Disorders

Journal

EUROPEAN EATING DISORDERS REVIEW
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 11-21

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/erv.2566

Keywords

eating disorders; bulimia nervosa; binge eating disorder; inhibition training; habit theory

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council (MRC)
  2. Psychiatry Research Trust (PRT) (Grant PCPTAAR)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  4. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  5. University of Alabama at Birmingham and Nova Scotia Health Authority
  6. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  7. Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London
  8. Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inefficient food-specific inhibitory control is a potential mechanism that underlies binge eating in bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder. Go/no-go training tools have been developed to increase inhibitory control over eating impulses. Using a within-subjects design, this study examined whether one session of food-specific go/no-go training, versus general inhibitory control training, modifies eating behaviour. The primary outcome measure was food consumption on a taste test following each training session. Women with bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder had small non-significant reductions in high-calorie food consumption on the taste test following the food-specific compared with the general training. There were no effects on eating disorder symptomatic behaviour (i.e. binge eating/purging) in the 24h post-training. The training task was found to be acceptable by the clinical groups. More research is needed with larger sample sizes to determine the effectiveness of this training approach for clinical populations. Copyright (c) 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available