4.5 Article

Cognitive dietary restraint is associated with eating behaviors, lifestyle practices, personality characteristics and menstrual irregularity in college women

期刊

APPETITE
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 185-192

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0195-6663(02)00125-3

关键词

restrained eating; vegetarianism; menstrual disturbances

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study characterized associations of restraint with selected physical, lifestyle, personality and menstrual cycle characteristics in female university students. The survey instrument, distributed to 1350 women, included standardized questionnaires (Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire, Perceived Stress Scale and Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale), and assessed weight and dieting history, exercise, lifestyle characteristics, menstrual cycle characteristics and whether participants were following vegetarian diets. Among the 596 respondents included in the analysis (44%), women with high (n = 145), medium (n = 262) or low (n = 189) restraint had similar ages, heights and weights. Despite this, compared to women with low scores, those with high scores exercised more (4.6 +/- 5.3 vs. 3.2 +/- 3.5 h/wk), were more likely to be vegetarian (14.5 vs. 3.7%), have a history of eating disorders (13.7 vs. 1.2%), be currently trying to lose weight (80.3 vs. 15.3%), report irregular menstrual cycles (34.7 vs. 17.0%), and have scores reflecting lower self-esteem and higher perceived stress. Menstrual irregularity was an independent predictor of restraint score, and restraint score was the only variable to differentiate women with regular and irregular menstrual cycles. We conclude that women with high restraint may use a combination of behavioral strategies for weight control, and differ from women with low restraint scores in personality characteristics and weight history. Some of these behaviors or characteristics may influence menstrual function. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science 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