4.5 Article

Individual differences in food perceptions and calorie estimation: An examination of dieting status, weight, and gender

期刊

APPETITE
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 450-458

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.009

关键词

obesity; calorie estimation; food perception; weight loss; categorical thinking

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R24 HD050959-06, R24 HD050959-07] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

People frequently place foods into health or diet categories. This study examined whether (1) evaluations of healthiness/unhealthiness influence caloric estimation accuracy, (2) people evaluate foods for healthiness/unhealthiness or weight gain/loss differently. and (3) food evaluations differ by gender, diet status, and weight. Also, undergraduate dieters attempting to lose weight on their own were compared to obese weight loss program participants. Undergraduate students (N = 101) rated eight healthy and unhealthy foods on perceived healthiness/unhealthiness, weight loss/gain capacity and caloric content. Open-ended questions inquiring why a food was healthy/unhealthy or would contribute to weight gain/loss were coded into independent food categories (e.g., high fat). Results indicate that calories were systematically underestimated in healthy/weight loss foods, while they were systematically overestimated in unhealthy/weight gain foods. Dieters were more accurate at estimating calories of healthy foods and more attentive to the foods' fat. calorie. and sugar content than non-dieters. Overweight participants commented more on fat and sugar content than normal weight participants. Undergraduate dieters used fewer categories for evaluating foods than weight loss program participants. Individual difference characteristics, such as diet-status, weight, and gender, influence people's perceptions of foods' healthiness or capacity to influence weight, and in some instances systematically bias their estimates of the caloric content of foods. (C) 2007 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

4.5
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