Brittany Lang1, Diana Rancourt2. 1. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA. bmlang@mail.usf.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Drive for leanness (DL), a motivating interest in having low body fat and toned muscles, is hypothesized to be less maladaptive than drives for thinness (DT) and muscularity (DM), which has implications for its inclusion in eating- and health-related prevention and treatment programs; however, little research has explored this hypothesis. The current study investigated DL's uniqueness from these other drives, as well as simultaneously explored if associations of DL and a range of health-related outcomes supported that it may be less maladaptive than DT and DM. METHODS: A sample of 589 undergraduate participants completed an online battery of drive (DL, DT, DM) and health-related measures (disordered eating, aerobic and weight training frequency, exercise motivation, dieting, appearance enhancing supplement use, anxiety, and depression). Exploratory factor analysis and semi-partial correlations evaluated DL's uniqueness. Hierarchical regressions and generalized linear models evaluated comparative associations of drives with health-related outcomes. Analysis of covariance investigated comparative perceived drive healthiness. RESULTS: DL was supported as unique from DT and DM. DL was less strongly associated with maladaptive outcomes (e.g., disordered eating, ExpB = .99, p = .86) and more strongly predictive of adaptive outcomes (e.g., healthy exercise motivation, β = .30, p < .001) than DT or DM. DL was perceived as healthier than either other drive. CONCLUSIONS: DL was supported as a unique and less maladaptive motivation than DT or DM, suggesting the emergence of a lean ideal may be less problematic than body ideals focused on either thinness or muscularity alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, cross-sectional descriptive study.
PURPOSE: Drive for leanness (DL), a motivating interest in having low body fat and toned muscles, is hypothesized to be less maladaptive than drives for thinness (DT) and muscularity (DM), which has implications for its inclusion in eating- and health-related prevention and treatment programs; however, little research has explored this hypothesis. The current study investigated DL's uniqueness from these other drives, as well as simultaneously explored if associations of DL and a range of health-related outcomes supported that it may be less maladaptive than DT and DM. METHODS: A sample of 589 undergraduate participants completed an online battery of drive (DL, DT, DM) and health-related measures (disordered eating, aerobic and weight training frequency, exercise motivation, dieting, appearance enhancing supplement use, anxiety, and depression). Exploratory factor analysis and semi-partial correlations evaluated DL's uniqueness. Hierarchical regressions and generalized linear models evaluated comparative associations of drives with health-related outcomes. Analysis of covariance investigated comparative perceived drive healthiness. RESULTS: DL was supported as unique from DT and DM. DL was less strongly associated with maladaptive outcomes (e.g., disordered eating, ExpB = .99, p = .86) and more strongly predictive of adaptive outcomes (e.g., healthy exercise motivation, β = .30, p < .001) than DT or DM. DL was perceived as healthier than either other drive. CONCLUSIONS: DL was supported as a unique and less maladaptive motivation than DT or DM, suggesting the emergence of a lean ideal may be less problematic than body ideals focused on either thinness or muscularity alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, cross-sectional descriptive study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disordered eating; Drive for leanness; Drive for muscularity; Drive for thinness; Health outcomes
Authors: Robin Halioua; Andrea Wyssen; Samuel Iff; Yannis Karrer; Erich Seifritz; Boris B Quednow; Malte Christian Claussen Journal: J Eat Disord Date: 2022-07-25