4.4 Article

Eating behaviours, dietary profile and body composition according to dieting history in men and women of the Quebec Family Study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 91, 期 6, 页码 997-1004

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1079/BJN20041115

关键词

dieting history; three-factor eating questionnaire; dietary patterns; gender differences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the present cross-sectional study was to compare eating behaviours (cognitive dietary restraint, disinhibition and susceptibility to hunger), dietary profile and physiological variables according to the practice of dieting: current dieting; history of dieting in the 10-year period that preceded the study; no dieting during the same period. Dieting history, anthropometric markers of adiposity, RMR, dietary profile (3 d food record) and eating behaviours (three-factor eating questionnaire) were determined in a sample of 244 men and 352 women. A greater proportion of women (31(.)8%) than men (16(.)8%) reported that they had been on a diet over the past 10 years (P=0(.)0001). In both genders, current and past dieters had a higher BMI (P<0(.)05) than non-dieters and current dieters had lower reported energy intakes than past dieters and non-dieters (only in women) (P<0(.)05). Current and past dieters also had higher scores for all eating behaviours and their subscales (P<0(.)05; except for susceptibility to hunger in men) compared with non-dieters (adjusted for age, reported energy intake, percentage of dietary fat, BMI and RMR). Moreover, for each dieting-history category, women had significantly higher scores for cognitive dietary restraint than men (P<0(.)05). In conclusion, the present study showed that current and past dieters had higher scores for cognitive dietary restraint and disinhibition compared with non-dieters. As disinhibition has previously been associated with a greater risk of subsequent weight gain, interventions aimed at preventing an increase in disinhibition may be promising for long-term weight maintenance.

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

4.4
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