| Literature DB >> 30189878 |
Marc Bénard1, France Bellisle2, Fabrice Etilé3, Gérard Reach4, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot2, Serge Hercberg2,5, Sandrine Péneau2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotional eating (EmE) is characterized by an over consumption of food in response to negative emotions and is associated with an increased weight status. Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) or a low level of impulsivity could influence the association between EmE and weight status. The objective was to analyze the moderating influence of CFC and impulsivity on the relationship between EmE and BMI.Entities:
Keywords: Consideration of future consequences; Emotional eating; Impulsivity; Nutritional status; Psychology
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30189878 PMCID: PMC6127957 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-018-0721-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Characteristics of 39,771 participants according to gender (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014)
| All ( | Women ( | Men ( | P1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years)2 | 49.9 ± 13.7 | 48.5 ± 13.5 | 54.1 ± 13.6 | <.0001 |
| Education level (%) | <.0001 | |||
| Primary | 2.8 | 2.7 | 3.3 | |
| Secondary | 32.8 | 32.4 | 34.3 | |
| Some college | 30.9 | 33.2 | 24.0 | |
| University | 33.2 | 31.5 | 38.2 | |
| Missing data | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| Occupational status (%) | <.0001 | |||
| Unemployed | 10.0 | 11.9 | 4.5 | |
| Student | 3.5 | 4.1 | 1.5 | |
| Self-employed, farmer | 1.7 | 1.6 | 2.0 | |
| Employee, manual worker | 16.0 | 18.5 | 8.5 | |
| Intermediate professions | 16.5 | 18.1 | 11.7 | |
| Managerial staff, intellectual profession | 22.1 | 20.6 | 26.7 | |
| Retired | 30.1 | 25.1 | 45.1 | |
| Monthly household income (%)3 | <.0001 | |||
| < 1200€ | 13.3 | 14.6 | 9.3 | |
| 1200-1799€ | 23.1 | 23.7 | 21.4 | |
| 1800-2299€ | 15.3 | 15.4 | 14.7 | |
| 2300-2699€ | 9.5 | 8.7 | 11.8 | |
| 2700-3699€ | 16.5 | 15.3 | 20.0 | |
| ≥ 3700€ | 11.1 | 9.6 | 15.6 | |
| Unwilling to answer | 10.3 | 11.4 | 6.8 | |
| Missing data | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.4 | |
| Smoking status (%) | <.0001 | |||
| Never smokers | 48.7 | 51.6 | 40.0 | |
| Smokers | 51.3 | 48.4 | 60.0 | |
| Physical activity (%) | <.0001 | |||
| Low | 21.6 | 22.3 | 19.4 | |
| Moderate | 40.5 | 42.1 | 35.6 | |
| High | 34.4 | 31.9 | 42.0 | |
| Missing data | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.0 | |
| History of dieting (%) | <.0001 | |||
| Never dieters | 60.8 | 57.7 | 70.3 | |
| Dieters | 39.2 | 42.3 | 29.7 | |
| Baseline BMI (kg/m2)2 | 24.0 ± 4.5 | 23.6 ± 4.6 | 25.1 ± 3.8 | <.0001 |
| BMI change/year (kg.m−2.y−1)2,4 | 0.04 ± 0.48 | 0.05 ± 0.51 | 0.02 ± 0.36 | <.0001 |
| Period of follow-up (years)4,5 | 5.27 (4.00–6.93) | 5.19 (3.97–6.91) | 5.96 (4.00–6.94) | <.0001 |
| Baseline Weight status (%) | <.0001 | |||
| Underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2) | 4.7 | 5.9 | 1.1 | |
| Normal (≥ 18.5 and < 25 kg/m2) | 63.4 | 66.4 | 54.1 | |
| Overweight (≥ 25 and < 30 kg/m2) | 22.9 | 18.6 | 35.5 | |
| Obese (≥ 30 kg/m2) | 8.9 | 8.8 | 9.3 | |
| Missing data | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| CFC (CFC-12) (range: 12–60)2 | 40.4 ± 7.0 | 40.2 ± 7.0 | 40.8 ± 6.9 | <.0001 |
| Impulsivity (BIS-11) (range: 30–120)2 | 58.6 ± 8.0 | 58.9 ± 7.9 | 57.4 ± 8.0 | <.0001 |
| Emotional eating score (range: 1–4)5 | 2.00 (1.33–2.83) | 2.17 (1.67–2.83) | 1.67 (1.00–2.17) | <.0001 |
CFC-12 Consideration of Future Consequences scale, high CFC scores indicate a high level of future orientation
BIS-11 Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th version), high BIS-11 scores indicate a high level of impulsivity
1p-value based on t tests for continuous variables or chi-square tests for categorical variables (corrected for multiple testing with a Holm-Bonferroni procedure)
2Mean ± SD
3Members of a household received different weights according to the OECD-modified equivalence scale: 1 for the first adult in the household, 0.5 for other persons aged 14 or older and 0.3 for children under 14 [58]. Total household income is then divided by the sum of the weights s to yield a representative income
4Based on the 38,665 participants with at least two measures of BMI
5Median (Interquartile range), adjusted p-value based on Wilcoxon two-sample test
Consideration of future consequences (CFC), impulsivity, and emotional eating scores in 39,771 participants (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014)
| GENDER | CFC | Emotional eating score | Impulsivity | Emotional eating score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (Interquartile range) | P1 | Median (Interquartile range) | P1 | |||
| WOMEN | CFC Tertile 1 | 2.33 (1.67–3.00) | <.0001 | Impulsivity Tertile 1 | 2.00 (1.33–2.67) | <.0001 |
| CFC Tertile 2 | 2.17 (1.67–2.83) | Impulsivity Tertile 2 | 2.17 (1.67–2.83) | |||
| CFC Tertile 3 | 2.17 (1.50–2.83) | Impulsivity Tertile 3 | 2.33 (1.83–3.00) | |||
| MEN | CFC Tertile 1 | 1.67 (1.00–2.17) | .78 | Impulsivity Tertile 1 | 1.50 (1.00–2.00) | <.0001 |
| CFC Tertile 2 | 1.67 (1.17–2.17) | Impulsivity Tertile 2 | 1.67 (1.17–2.17) | |||
| CFC Tertile 3 | 1.67 (1.00–2.17) | Impulsivity Tertile 3 | 1.83 (1.17–2.50) | |||
Emotional eating score ranges from 1 to 4
CFC-12 Consideration of Future Consequences scale, high CFC-12 scores indicate a high level of future orientation
BIS-11 Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th version), high BIS-11 scores indicate a high level of impulsivity
The three categories of CFC-12 and BIS-11 were calculated according to tertiles of the total score
1p-values are based on Kruskal-Wallis tests (corrected for multiple testing with a Holm-Bonferroni procedure)
Association between emotional eating and repeated measures of BMI according to consideration of future consequences categories (CFC) (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014)
| Gender | CFC | EmE | P2 | EmE × CFC-12 | P2 | EmE × CFC-12 | P2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | CFC Tertile 1 | 1.72 (1.63, 1.81) | <.0001 | Ref | |||
| CFC Tertile 2 | 1.48 (1.37, 1.59) | <.0001 | −0.23 (− 0.37, − 0.09) | .007 | Ref | ||
| CFC Tertile 3 | 1.29 (1.20, 1.38) | <.0001 | −0.43 (− 0.55, − 0.30) | <.0001 | −0.19 (− 0.33, − 0.05) | .03 | |
| Men | CFC Tertile 1 | 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) | <.0001 | Ref | |||
| CFC Tertile 2 | 0.83 (0.65, 1.00) | <.0001 | −0.36 (−0.58, − 0.13) | .01 | Ref | ||
| CFC Tertile 3 | 0.91 (0.76, 1.06) | <.0001 | −0.27 (− 0.48, − 0.07) | .03 | 0.08 (− 0.15, 0.31) | .48 |
CFC-12 Consideration of Future Consequences scale, high CFC-12 scores indicate a high level of future orientation
The three categories of CFC-12 were calculated according to tertiles of the total score
EmE, Emotional Eating, is continuous variable ranging from 1 to 4
1β coefficients of the EmE effect can be interpreted as changes in BMI (in kg/m2) per increase of 1 point in the EmE scale in each CFC category
2Adjusted p-value (correction for multiple testing with a Holm-Bonferroni procedure) based on linear mixed-effects models with time, age, education level, occupational status, monthly income household unit, smoking status, physical activity, and history of dieting as fixed effects, and intercept and time as random effects
β coefficients of the EmE × CFC-12 interaction can be interpreted as differences of BMI slope (in kg/m2) per increase of 1 point in the EmE scale between CFC categories
Association between emotional eating and repeated measures of BMI according to impulsivity categories (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014)
| Gender | BIS-11 | EmE | P2 | EmE × BIS-11 | P2 | EmE × BIS-11 | P2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Impulsivity Tertile 1 | 1.35 (1.25, 1.46) | <.0001 | Ref | |||
| Impulsivity Tertile 2 | 1.47 (1.38, 1.57) | <.0001 | 0.12 (−0.02, 0.26) | .18 | Ref | ||
| Impulsivity Tertile 3 | 1.73 (1.63, 1.82) | <.0001 | 0.37 (0.24, 0.51) | <.0001 | 0.26 (0.12, 0.39) | .0009 | |
| Men | All | 1.00 (0.91, 1.10) | <.0001 | – | – |
BIS-11, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th version), high BIS-11 scores indicate a high level of impulsivity
The three categories of BIS-11 were calculated according to tertiles of the total score
EmE, Emotional Eating, is continuous variable ranging from 1 to 4
1β coefficients of the EmE effect can be interpreted as changes in BMI (in kg/m2) per increase of 1 point in the EmE scale in each impulsivity category
2Adjusted p-value (correction for multiple testing with a Holm-Bonferroni procedure) based on linear mixed-effects models with time, age, education level, occupational status, monthly income household unit, smoking status, physical activity, and history of dieting as fixed effects, and intercept and time as random effects
3β coefficients of the EmE × BIS-11 interaction can be interpreted as differences in change of BMI (in kg/m2) per increase of 1 point in the EmE scale between impulsivity categories