4.0 Article

Association of anthropometric status, perceived stress, and personality traits with eating behavior in university students

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40519-018-00637-w

关键词

Eating behavior; Anthropometric status; Stress; Personality; Students; Gender difference

资金

  1. [13J02216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeWe investigated the association of anthropometric status, perceived stress, and personality traits with eating behavior in university students.MethodsThe participants, 1546 Japanese university students (964 males, 582 females), completed a questionnaire which asked for their current height and weight, ideal height and weight, eating behaviors, perceived stress, and personality traits.ResultsRestrained eating was higher in normal-weight participants compared with underweight participants in both males and females (p<0.001, both males and females). Restrained eating in normal-weight males was significantly lower in normal-weight females (p<0.001). In addition, normal-weight males reported less stress than normal-weight females (anxiety/uncertainty, p=0.037; tiredness/physical responses, p<0.001; autonomic symptoms, p<0.001; depression/feeling, p<0.001) and underweight males (tiredness/physical responses, p=0.018; autonomic symptoms, p=0.001). Moreover, among normal-weight males, neuroticism was significantly lower compared with normal-weight females (p<0.001). In multiple regression analysis, male participants revealed positive association between restrained eating and body mass index (=0.199, p<0.001) or body mass index difference (=-0.170, p=0.001). In contrast, female revealed more significant associations between emotional and external eating and perceived stress or personality traits compared with males.ConclusionsThese results indicate that associations between eating behavior and anthropometric status or psychological factors are different by each eating behavior, which is partly influenced by gender difference.Level of evidenceV, cross-sectional descriptive study.

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

4.0
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