4.2 Article

What does it mean to eat an appropriate amount of food?

期刊

EATING BEHAVIORS
卷 23, 期 -, 页码 24-27

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.07.002

关键词

Food intake; Norms; Appropriateness; Internal eating cues; External eating cues

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP140101041]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Norms of appropriateness have been used to account for the influence of a variety of external eating cues (e.g., social factors, portion size) on people's food intake. What is less clear is what, exactly, appropriate means. This study explored participants' conceptions of appropriate food intake. Two separate samples were included in this study: 121 university students (73% women) and 107 community members (100% women). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which several statements reflected the concept of appropriate food intake or normal food intake (1= Does not capture the definition at all; 7= Captures the definition perfectly). These statements included items referring to external eating cues (e.g., Eating as much as other people, Eating the entire portion of what you are served) and items referring to internal eating cues (e.g., Eating an amount that will make you feel satisfied) or nutritional needs (e.g., Eating a healthy amount). Repeated measures ANOVAs indicated that participants consistently defined appropriate/normal intake in terms of internal eating cues and nutritional needs. In contrast, despite evidence indicating that perceptions of how much is an appropriate amount to eat are affected by external eating cues, external eating cues were ignored in participants' definition of appropriate/ normal intake. The disconnect between how people define appropriate intake (i.e., in terms of internal cues) and what research shows affects norms of appropriateness (i.e., external cues) may reflect people's general unwillingness to acknowledge the influence of external eating cues on their food intake. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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