Disinhibited or Disconnected? Dietary Restraint Attenuates the Relationship Between Heart Rate Variability and Stress-Induced Suppression of Food Intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Literature on restrained eaters posits that the capacity to successfully diet is cognitively demanding, requiring exertion of cognitive control over one’s eating behaviour. Demands that deplete this limited inner resource can thus lead restrained eaters to become disinhibited and consume large amounts of food. Although self-regulation is inferred to play a role, it has not yet been studied in combination with its physiological correlates. As low heart rate variability (HRV) is associated with lower self-regulatory capacity, and acute mental stressors decrease HRV, it was hypothesized that reduced HRV during stress may mediate the relationship between stress and food intake, and that the mediation may be moderated by dietary restraint. Specifically, the moderation hypothesis predicted more restrained eaters would exhibit a stronger relationship between low HRV and intake. Female undergraduates ( n = 92) were randomized to a stress or control condition while HRV was recorded. Participants subsequently engaged in a bogus taste test to quantify post-stress consumption. Restraint was conceptualized using Hagan and colleagues’ (2017) latent restraint factors. A significant moderated mediation emerged for Weight-Focused Restraint, ab3 = .196, SE = .077, 95% CI [.060, .361] and Calorie Counting, ab3 = .062, SE = .023, 95% CI [.024, .115]. However, contrary to expectation, stress-induced HRV reduction was associated with decreased intake for those low in restraint, whereas intake was unrelated to HRV for individuals with higher dietary restraint. Further, there was no evidence of traditionally-defined disinhibition in more restrained eaters. Results suggest those with higher restraint show a relative disconnection from internal physiological cues shown to affect intake under stress in less restrained individuals.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".