MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2155721042 · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12053

Dieting and the self‐control of eating in everyday environments: An experience sampling study

2013· article· en· W2155721042 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish Journal of Health Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueBehavioral Health and Interventions
Établissements canadiensBooth University College
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismIndependent Electricity System Operator
Mots-clésDietingPsychologyExperience sampling methodSocial psychologySelf-controlControl (management)Weight controlDevelopmental psychologyResistance (ecology)Eating behaviorWeight lossObesityMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The literature on dieting has sparked several debates over how restrained eaters differ from unrestrained eaters in their self-regulation of healthy and unhealthy food desires and what distinguishes successful from unsuccessful dieters. We addressed these debates using a four-component model of self-control that was tested using ecological momentary assessment, long-term weight change, and a laboratory measure of inhibitory control. DESIGN: A large sample of adults varying in dietary restraint and inhibitory control (as measured by a Stroop task) were equipped with smartphones for a week. They were beeped on random occasions and provided information on their experience and control of healthy and unhealthy food desires in everyday environments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were desire strength, experienced conflict, resistance, enactment of desire, and weight change after a 4-month follow-up. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Dietary restraint was unrelated to desire frequency and strength, but associated with higher conflict experiences and motivation to use self-control with regard to food desires. Most importantly, relationships between dietary restraint and resistance, enactment of desire, and long-term weight change were moderated by inhibitory control: Compared with dieters low in response inhibition, dieters high in response inhibition were more likely to attempt to resist food desires, not consume desired food (especially unhealthy food), and objectively lost more weight over the ensuing 4 months. These results highlight the combinatory effects of aspects of the self-control process in dieters and highlight the value in linking theoretical process frameworks, experience sampling, and laboratory-based assessment in health science. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? Dieting is a multifaceted process that can be viewed from the lens of self-control. Dietary restraint measures can be used to capture dieting status, but it is relatively unclear what differentiates successful from unsuccessful dieters (e.g., differences in desire frequency, desire strength, motivation, executive functions). What does this study add? A novel four-step conceptual model of self-control is applied to eating behaviour in everyday life. This model allows a fine-grained look at the self-control process in restrained eaters (dieters) as compared to non-dieters. Dieters and non-dieters do not differ in desire frequency and strength (they are not simply more tempted). Dieters high (as compared to low) in inhibitory control are more likely to engage in self-control. Dieters high (as compared to low) in inhibitory control are more likely to resist unhealthy food desires. Dieters high (as compared to low) in inhibitory control are more likely to loose weight over a 4-month period. Together, the study shows clear differences among successful and unsuccessful dieters that can be linked to differences in executive functioning (inhibitory control). The present article is one of the first studies combining a conceptual model with smartphone experience sampling to study weight control and thus paradigmatic from a methodological perspective.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,495
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,728

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,446
Écart entre enseignants0,374 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle