4.4 Article

On the relation of flexible and rigid control of eating to body mass index and overeating in patients with binge eating disorder

期刊

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/eat.10001

关键词

flexible control; rigid control; binge eating disorder

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK49587] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R29DK049587, R01DK049587] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the relationship of flexible and rigid dimensions of restrained eating to body mass index (BMI) and overeating in outpatients with binge eating disorder (BED). Method: Participants were 748 consecutive outpatients who met criteria for BED. The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) was administered to assess Cognitive Restraint Hunger, and Disinhibition, The TFEQ also contains two Cognitive Restraint subscales - Flexible Control and Rigid Control. The Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire version (EDE-Q) was administered to assess frequency of different forms of overeating during the past 28 days and the attitudinal features of eating disorders. Results: Flexible Control and Rigid Control were significantly correlated with each other. They were both negatively correlated with BMI, but neither was significantly correlated with the frequency of binge eating or other forms of overeating, In addition, Flexible Control and Rigid Control predicted almost the same amount of variance in BAIL Discussion: BED patients exhibit flexible and rigid control of eating that is related to BMI, but not to the frequency of binge eating or other forms of overeating. Results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that flexible and rigid control of eating may not be a useful distinction in BED patients. However, increased restraint, regardless of type, may prove to be of benefit with regard to weight control and may not have adverse effects on binge eating in obese BED patients. (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Inc.

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