4.0 Article

Eating behavior and perception of body shape in Japanese university students

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40519-014-0130-7

Keywords

Body shape; Eating behaviors; Gender differences; Anthropometry measurements

Categories

Funding

  1. [13J02216]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25650156, 13J02216] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose We investigated the relationship between eating behavior measured by the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ) and perception of body shape, examining the current physical status and 'ideal' physical parameters in females and males. Methods The participants, 548 Japanese university students (age 19.2 +/- A 0.9 years, mean +/- A SD; 252 males, 296 females), completed a questionnaire which asked for their current physical status (e.g., weight and height), their ideal physical parameters, their perception of their current body shape, their ideal body shape, and their eating behaviors. Results The ideal weight and ideal body mass index (BMI) were significantly higher than the current weight and BMI in the males, but significantly lower in the females. Among the females, the ideal body shape was smaller than their perception of current body shape. The DEBQ scores for restrained, emotional, and external eating were higher in the females than the males among the normal-weight participants, and among the underweight participants, the restrained eating and external eating scores were higher in the females than the males. Restrained eating was negatively associated with the discrepancy between the current and ideal weight, BMI, and body shape in both the males and females. Emotional eating was negatively associated with the discrepancy in current/ideal BMI and body shape only in the females. Conclusions At least in Japanese university students, the gender differences in ideal body shape are related to eating behavior.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available