| Literature DB >> 30909426 |
Kathleen L Keller1,2, Samantha M R Kling3, Bari Fuchs4, Alaina L Pearce5, Nicole A Reigh6, Travis Masterson7, Kara Hickok8.
Abstract
The prevalence of obesity and eating disorders varies by sex, but the extent to which sex influences eating behaviors, especially in childhood, has received less attention. The purpose of this paper is to critically discuss the literature on sex differences in eating behavior in children and present new findings supporting the role of sex in child appetitive traits and neural responses to food cues. In children, the literature shows sex differences in food acceptance, food intake, appetitive traits, eating-related compensation, and eating speed. New analyses demonstrate that sex interacts with child weight status to differentially influence appetitive traits. Further, results from neuroimaging suggest that obesity in female children is positively related to neural reactivity to higher-energy-dense food cues in regions involved with contextual processing and object recognition, while the opposite was found in males. In addition to differences in how the brain processes information about food, other factors that may contribute to sex differences include parental feeding practices, societal emphasis on dieting, and peer influences. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings, as they may have implications for the development of effective intervention programs to improve dietary behaviors and prevent obesity.Entities:
Keywords: biopsychosocial; brain imaging; children; eating behavior; food intake; sex differences
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30909426 PMCID: PMC6470823 DOI: 10.3390/nu11030682
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Biopsychosocial model of sex effects on children’s eating behaviors. Potential biological influences could come from differences in brain anatomy or brain function that arise early in development, effects due to sex chromosomes, temperament, genes, or differences in body composition and/or weight status that can influence food intake regulation. Psychological influences include body image concerns, dieting, and cognitive restraint and disinhibition, typically observed more frequently in females than males. Social influences include differences in parental feeding practices directed at males and females, parental dieting, peer influences, and societal emphasis on “thinness” in females and “bigness” in males.
Demographic Characteristics of children enrolled in studies that assessed sex differences in appetitive traitsa and neural responses to food cuesb.
| CEBQ a | Fmri b | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | Females | Males | Females | |
| Age (years) | 7.40 (2.28) | 7.56 (2.10) | 8.75(0.99) | 9.06(1.34) |
| BMI percentile | 61.53 (29.06) | 58.50 (28.20) | 52.50(27.12) | 53.57(30.93) |
| Maternal Ed. (years) | 16.19 (2.63) | 16.35 (2.71) | 16.91(2.49) | 16.88(1.90) |
| Weight Status ( | ||||
| Obese/Overweight | 43 | 27 | 3 | 6 |
| Healthy Weight | 90 | 103 | 19 | 19 |
| Ethnicity ( | ||||
| Not Hispanic/Latinx | 94 | 84 | 20 | 25 |
| Hispanic/Latinx | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Not Reported | 35 | 35 | 1 | 0 |
| Race ( | ||||
| Black/African American | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| White | 119 | 112 | 19 | 25 |
| Other | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Not Reported | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| SES ( | ||||
| >$100,000 | 16 | 19 | 7 | 5 |
| $51,000–$100,000 | 30 | 29 | 11 | 15 |
| ≤$50,000 | 18 | 18 | 3 | 5 |
| Not Reported | 69 | 64 | 1 | 0 |
Means (SD) reported for Age, BMI percentile, and Maternal Education. Weight Status categories defined by BMI percentile: Obese/Overweight ≥ 85th percentile; Healthy Weight < 85th percentile. BMI, body-mass index; CEBQ, Child Eating Behaviors Questionnaire Sample; fMRI, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sample. a Sample assessing appetitive traits in case study #1; b Sample assessing neural responses to food cues in Case Study #2.
Hierarchical Regression for Approach and Avoidance Scales of the Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire.
| Food Approach | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||||
| B | SE | β | B | SE | β | B | SE | β | B | SE | β | B | SE | β | |
| Maternal Education | −0.005 | 0.01 | −0.027 | −0.005 | 0.01 | −0.028 | −0.005 | 0.01 | −0.025 | −0.005 | 0.01 | −0.025 | −0.003 | 0.01 | −0.015 |
| Age | 0.008 | 0.01 | 0.034 | −0.003 | 0.09 | −0.015 | 0.0003 | 0.01 | −0.001 | 0.001 | 0.02 | 0.003 | −0.002 | 0.01 | −0.008 |
| Age-squared | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.050 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | |||
| Weight Status | 0.288 | 0.07 | 0.572 *** | 0.288 | 0.07 | 0.288 *** | 0.455 | 0.11 | 0.902 *** | ||||||
| Sex | −0.119 | 0.06 | −0.002 | −0.107 | 0.22 | −0.237 | −0.046 | 0.07 | −0.091 | ||||||
| Sex X Age | −0.002 | 0.03 | −0.007 | -- | -- | -- | |||||||||
| Sex X Weight Status | −0.286 | 0.14 | −0.567 * | ||||||||||||
| R2 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.071 | 0.071 | 0.086 | ||||||||||
| ∆ R2 F | 1 0.017 | 1 9.59 *** | 3 0.003 | 3 4.21 * | |||||||||||
| Food Avoidance | |||||||||||||||
| Maternal Education | 0.017 | 0.01 | 0.094 | 0.016 | 0.01 | 0.093 | 0.017 | 0.01 | 0.094 | 0.017 | 0.01 | 0.097 | 0.017 | 0.01 | 0.093 |
| Age | −0.029 | 0.01 | −0.137 * | −0.072 | 0.08 | −0.339 | −0.027 | 0.01 | −0.126 * | −0.035 | 0.02 | −0.165 | −0.026 | 0.01 | −0.125 * |
| Age-squared | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.205 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||
| Weight Status | −0.073 | 0.07 | −0.156 | −0.071 | 0.07 | 0.151 | −0.087 | 0.10 | −0.184 | ||||||
| Sex | 0.068 | 0.06 | 0.143 | −0.049 | 0.21 | 0.143 | - | - | - | ||||||
| Sex X Age | 0.015 | 0.03 | 0.072 | 0.062 | 0.07 | 0.131 | |||||||||
| Sex X Weight Status | 0.023 | 0.13 | 0.049 | ||||||||||||
| R2 | 0.029 | 0.030 | 0.038 | 0.039 | 0.038 | ||||||||||
| ∆ R2 F | 1 0.303 | 1 1.137 | 1 0.0.87 | 1 0.765 | |||||||||||
Standardized coefficients (B) and standard errors are presented along with the unstandardized coefficients (β) for model Steps 1–5. For change in R-square, the number in the brackets indicate which model step it was tested against. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. 1 Model was tested against model 1; 3 Model was tested against model 3
Figure 2(A) Statistical parametric map (F-statistic) of the interaction between BMIz and child sex on neural responses to high-ED compared to Low-ED food cues. Cluster extends from the right superior temporal gyrus into the parahippocampal and fusiform gyri. (B) Extracted energy density contrast (high-ED–low-ED) parameter estimates, illustrating increased activation to high-ED compared to low-ED food cues for girls with BMIz greater than the 50th percentile and increased activation to high-ED compared to low-ED food cues for boys with BMIz greater below the 50th percentile.