Emotional eating and weight regulation: a qualitative study of compensatory behaviors and concerns
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotional eating, or overeating in response to negative emotions, is a behavior endorsed by both normal weight and people with overweight/obesity. For some individuals, emotional eating contributes to weight gain and difficulties losing weight. However, there are also many who engage in emotional eating who maintain a normal weight. Little is known about the mechanisms by which these individuals are able to regulate their weight. METHODS: The present study seeks to gain insight into the behaviors of individuals of normal weight who engage in emotional eating through a series of one-on-one, 1-h long, qualitative interviews. Interviews were semi-structured and guided by questions pertaining to participants' compensatory behaviors used to regulate weight and concerns regarding their emotional eating. All interviews were transcribed and then objected to a thematic analysis of their content. RESULTS: The results of this analysis showed that participants endorsed using physical activity, controlling their eating behaviors, and engaging in alternative stress reduction and coping strategies to mitigate the effects of their emotional eating. They reported concern over the effects of emotional eating on their weight, body image, and health and saw this behavior as an unhealthy coping mechanism that was difficult to control. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that programs promoting exercise, mindful eating, emotion regulation, and positive body image could have a positive effect on emotional eaters who struggle to maintain a healthy weight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it