Hannah S Grider1, Steve M Douglas1, Hollie A Raynor2. 1. Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 2. Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Electronic address: hraynor@utk.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stimuli that promote eating in the absence of the physiological need for food are pervasive and can facilitate excessive energy intake. The practices of mindful eating (ME) and intuitive eating (IE) have been developed to minimize external drivers of energy intake by helping individuals emphasize the sensory properties of foods and internal indicators of hunger and fullness. OBJECTIVE: To enhance understanding about the effect of ME and IE interventions on dietary intake, this systematic review included randomized trials of ME and IE interventions that examined dietary intake, defined as energy intake or diet quality, in adults of varying weight status without a diagnosis of an eating disorder. METHODS: The selection of literature followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review process, in which PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies published between January 1980 and November 2019. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: randomized trial design in which 1 arm was an intervention with an ME or IE component and there was at least 1 control or active comparison arm; enrolled participants were of a healthy weight or with overweight or obesity and reported not having an eating disorder (ie, anorexia, bulimia nervosa, or binge eating disorder) or other health conditions in which dietary restrictions were applied; were at least 18 years of age; and outcomes of energy intake or diet quality were reported at baseline and post intervention. The modified Downs and Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias for each study that met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies, including 8 investigating ME interventions and 5 investigating IE interventions, represented in 14 articles, were included in the review. Seven of the 9 articles reporting on energy intake did not find significant group differences. Eight of the 12 articles reporting on diet quality did not find significant group differences. The mean bias assessment score was 13.6 out of 28, indicating poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: Little evidence suggests that ME and IE interventions influence energy intake or diet quality. To draw strong conclusions about the effect of ME and IE on dietary intake, future research using study designs of high rigor are needed.
BACKGROUND: Stimuli that promote eating in the absence of the physiological need for food are pervasive and can facilitate excessive energy intake. The practices of mindful eating (ME) and intuitive eating (IE) have been developed to minimize external drivers of energy intake by helping individuals emphasize the sensory properties of foods and internal indicators of hunger and fullness. OBJECTIVE: To enhance understanding about the effect of ME and IE interventions on dietary intake, this systematic review included randomized trials of ME and IE interventions that examined dietary intake, defined as energy intake or diet quality, in adults of varying weight status without a diagnosis of an eating disorder. METHODS: The selection of literature followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review process, in which PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies published between January 1980 and November 2019. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: randomized trial design in which 1 arm was an intervention with an ME or IE component and there was at least 1 control or active comparison arm; enrolled participants were of a healthy weight or with overweight or obesity and reported not having an eating disorder (ie, anorexia, bulimia nervosa, or binge eating disorder) or other health conditions in which dietary restrictions were applied; were at least 18 years of age; and outcomes of energy intake or diet quality were reported at baseline and post intervention. The modified Downs and Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias for each study that met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies, including 8 investigating ME interventions and 5 investigating IE interventions, represented in 14 articles, were included in the review. Seven of the 9 articles reporting on energy intake did not find significant group differences. Eight of the 12 articles reporting on diet quality did not find significant group differences. The mean bias assessment score was 13.6 out of 28, indicating poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: Little evidence suggests that ME and IE interventions influence energy intake or diet quality. To draw strong conclusions about the effect of ME and IE on dietary intake, future research using study designs of high rigor are needed.