Bradley M Appelhans1, Christy C Tangney2, Simone A French3, Melissa M Crane1, Yamin Wang1. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Rush University Medical Center. 2. Department of Clinical Nutrition, Rush University Medical Center. 3. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Delay discounting is a neurocognitive trait that has been linked to poor nutritional health and obesity, but its role in specific dietary choices is unclear. This study tested whether individual differences in delay discounting are related to the healthfulness of household food purchases and reliance on nonstore food sources such as restaurants. METHOD: The food purchases of 202 primary household food shoppers were objectively documented for 14 days through a food receipt collection and analysis protocol. The nutrient content of household food purchases was derived for each participant, and the overall diet quality (Healthy Eating Index-2015) and energy density (kcal/g) of foods and beverages were calculated. The proportion of energy from nonstore food sources was also derived. Delay discounting was assessed with a choice task featuring hypothetical monetary rewards. RESULTS: Data were available for 12,624 foods and beverages purchased across 2,340 shopping episodes. Approximately 13% of energy was purchased from restaurants and other nonstore food sources. Steeper discounting rates were associated with lower overall Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores and a higher energy density (kcal/g) of purchased foods. Associations were attenuated but remained statistically significant when accounting for body mass index and sociodemographic variables. Discounting rates were unrelated to reliance on nonstore food sources or the energy density of purchased beverages. CONCLUSIONS: Delay discounting is related to the healthfulness of food purchases among primary household shoppers. As food purchasing is a key antecedent of dietary intake, delay discounting may be a viable target in dietary and weight management interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Delay discounting is a neurocognitive trait that has been linked to poor nutritional health and obesity, but its role in specific dietary choices is unclear. This study tested whether individual differences in delay discounting are related to the healthfulness of household food purchases and reliance on nonstore food sources such as restaurants. METHOD: The food purchases of 202 primary household food shoppers were objectively documented for 14 days through a food receipt collection and analysis protocol. The nutrient content of household food purchases was derived for each participant, and the overall diet quality (Healthy Eating Index-2015) and energy density (kcal/g) of foods and beverages were calculated. The proportion of energy from nonstore food sources was also derived. Delay discounting was assessed with a choice task featuring hypothetical monetary rewards. RESULTS: Data were available for 12,624 foods and beverages purchased across 2,340 shopping episodes. Approximately 13% of energy was purchased from restaurants and other nonstore food sources. Steeper discounting rates were associated with lower overall Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores and a higher energy density (kcal/g) of purchased foods. Associations were attenuated but remained statistically significant when accounting for body mass index and sociodemographic variables. Discounting rates were unrelated to reliance on nonstore food sources or the energy density of purchased beverages. CONCLUSIONS: Delay discounting is related to the healthfulness of food purchases among primary household shoppers. As food purchasing is a key antecedent of dietary intake, delay discounting may be a viable target in dietary and weight management interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Anne N Thorndike; Oliver-John M Bright; Melissa A Dimond; Ronald Fishman; Douglas E Levy Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Leslie K John; George Loewenstein; Andrea B Troxel; Laurie Norton; Jennifer E Fassbender; Kevin G Volpp Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dong D Wang; Cindy W Leung; Yanping Li; Eric L Ding; Stephanie E Chiuve; Frank B Hu; Walter C Willett Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Amy Hillier; Tony E Smith; Eliza D Whiteman; Benjamin W Chrisinger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Yan Yan Sze; Tinuke Oluyomi Daniel; Colleen K Kilanowski; R Lorraine Collins; Leonard H Epstein Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Kelseanna Hollis-Hansen; Jennifer Seidman; Sara O'Donnell; Amber Wedderburn; Sanja Stanar; Spencer Brande; Leonard H Epstein Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 4.267