4.2 Article

Is Ramadan fasting correlated with disordered eating behaviours in adolescents?

期刊

EATING DISORDERS
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 74-87

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10640266.2019.1642032

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of adolescents fast during Ramadan for spiritual reasons rather than weight control, with a small percentage of religious fasters at risk for disordered eating. Furthermore, there was no significant correlation found between Ramadan fasting and disordered eating behaviors or body image dissatisfaction.
This study aimed to examine the cross-sectional relationship between Ramadan fasting as a spiritual factor with prolonged hunger and disordered eating behaviors. The study was conducted in June 2016 (11th-29th days of Ramadan) and consisted of 238 fasting and 49 non-fasting adolescents. Risk of disordered eating was evaluated using the Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26) and Three Factor Eating Questionnaire-R18 (TFEQ-R18). Body image dissatisfaction was rated with Stunkard's Figure Rating Scale (FRS). Nutritional status was assessed using a 24-hour dietary recall. There was no significant difference between energy intake, EAT-26 and TFEQ-R18 scores (except the emotional eating sub-scores) between the groups. FRS revealed that the comparisons of their ideal and self were not significantly different between the groups whereas the gap between the figures they think healthy and closest to self was significantly higher amongst non-fasting adolescents. Two-hundred and two (97.5%) adolescents reported fasting for religious purposes whereas only 8 (3.4%) for losing weight. The EAT-26 total scores were in the pathological range in 39 (16.8%) adolescents who fasted for religious purposes. This study suggests that motivation of adolescents to fast during Ramadan was due to spiritual decisions rather than weight control or other factors and Ramadan fasting was not correlated with disordered eating behaviors or body image dissatisfaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据