Is Intuitive Eating Associated With Diet Quality and Physical Health Indicators? Findings From the PREDISE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The first objective was to assess whether intuitive eating is associated with adherence to Canada's Food Guide. The second objective was to examine whether sociodemographic and anthropometric characteristics moderate this association. The third objective was to analyze whether intuitive eating is associated with physical health indicators. Methods: In the context of the PREDISE study, 1,088 French-speaking Canadian adults from the Province of Québec (50% women) completed a web-based survey that included the Intuitive Eating Scale-2. Three web-based 24h dietary recalls were completed and used to calculate the Canadian Healthy Eating Index (C-HEI) score, an indicator of adherence to Canada's Food Guide. Participants were also invited to the research center for the assessment of physical health indicators (body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, fasting blood glucose and insulin levels). Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to assess how intuitive eating is associated with diet quality and physical health indicators. Interaction terms were tested to identify potential moderators. Results: Total intuitive eating score was not associated with C-HEI (B=-0.73, p=0.35). However, the “body-food choice congruence” subscale was positively associated with C-HEI (B=3.54, p< 0.0001), while the “unconditional permission to eat” subscale was negatively associated with C-HEI (B=-3.60, p< 0.0001). Age was a significant moderator of the association between intuitive eating and C-HEI (p interaction=0.03), and stratified analyses suggested a negative association in participants aged between 50 and 65 years (B=-3.20, p=0.02). Intuitive eating was negatively associated with waist circumference (B=-2.96, p< 0.0001) and HDL cholesterol only in women (B=-0.10, p< 0.01), but with no other physical health indicators. Conclusions: Higher intuitive eating score does not appear to be associated with better diet quality, and only a few associations with physical health indicators were observed. Although the association between intuitive eating and improved psychological health is well-established in the literature, the relationship between intuitive eating and overall diet quality and physical health is less clearcut. Funding Sources: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".