Do low-calorie sweetened beverages help to control food cravings? Two experimental studies

Low-calorie sweetened (LCS) beverages may help consumers to satisfy hedonic food cravings without violating dieting goals, however this remains unexplored. The present research investigated the effect of priming hedonic eating motivations on ad libitum energy intake in frequent and non-consumers of LCS beverages. It was hypothesised that energy intake would be greater after the hedonic eating prime relative to a control prime in non-consumers, but that frequent LCS beverage consumers would be protected from this effect. In Study 1 (N = 120), frequent and non-consumers were exposed to either chocolate or neutral cues (craving vs. control condition) and then completed a beverage-related visual probe task with concurrent eye-tracking. Ad libitum energy intake from sweet and savoury snacks and beverages (including LCS) was then assessed. Study 2 followed a similar protocol, but included only frequent consumers (N = 172) and manipulated the availability of LCS beverages in the ad libitum eating context (available vs. unavailable). Measures of guilt and perceived behavioural control were also included. In Study 1, as hypothesised, non-consumers showed greater energy intake in the craving condition relative to the control condition, but frequent consumers had similar energy intake in both conditions. Frequent consumers (but not non-consumers) also demonstrated an attentional bias for LCS beverage stimuli compared to both sugar and water stimuli. In contrast, in Study 2 frequent consumers showed greater energy intake in the craving condition relative to the control condition; however, overall energy intake was significantly greater when LCS beverages were unavailable compared to when they were available. Ratings of guilt were higher and perceived control was lower in the LCS-unavailable condition relative to the LCS-available condition. Conclusions: LCS beverages did not consistently protect consumers from craving-induced increases in energy intake. However, frequent consumers consumed fewer calories overall when LCS beverages were available (relative to unavailable), as well as perceiving more control over their food intake and feeling less guilty

From socioeconomic disadvantage to obesity: The mediating role of psychological distress and emotional eating

Objective Lower socioeconomic status is robustly associated with obesity; however, the underpinning psychological mechanisms remain unclear. The current study sought to determine whether the relationship between lower socioeconomic status and obesity is explained by psychological distress and subsequent emotional eating as a coping strategy. It also examined whether psychological resilience plays a protective role in this pathway. Methods Participants (N  = 150) from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds completed questionnaire measures of psychological distress, emotional eating, and resilience. They reported their income and education level as an indicator of socioeconomic status and their height and weight in order to calculate BMI. Results There was a significant indirect effect of socioeconomic status on BMI via psychological distress and emotional eating; specifically, lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher distress, higher distress was associated with higher emotional eating, and higher emotional eating was associated with higher BMI (b [SE] = −0.02 [0.01]; 95% CI: −0.04 to −0.01). However, resilience was not a significant moderator of this association. Conclusions Psychological distress and subsequent emotional eating represent a serial pathway that links lower socioeconomic status with obesity. Targeting these maladaptive coping behaviors may be one strategy to reduce obesity in low‐income populations

Food insecurity and severe mental illness: understanding the hidden problem and how to ask about food access during routine healthcare

SUMMARY Food insecurity occurs when an individual lacks the financial resources to ensure reliable access to sufficient food to meet their dietary, nutritional and social needs. Adults living with mental ill health, particularly severe mental illness, are more likely to experience food insecurity than the general adult population. Despite this, most interventions and policy reforms in recent years have been aimed at children and families, with little regard for other vulnerable groups. Initiating a conversation about access to food can be tricky and assessing for food insecurity does not happen in mental health settings. This article provides an overview of food insecurity and how it relates to mental ill health. With reference to research evidence, the reader will gain an understanding of food insecurity, how it can be assessed and how food-insecure individuals with severe mental illness can be supported. Finally, we make policy recommendations to truly address this driver of health inequality.</jats:p

Understanding barriers to purchasing healthier, more sustainable food for people living with obesity and food insecurity.

In westernised countries, food insecurity (FI), poorer diet quality, and obesity are disproportionately represented in groups experiencing socio-economic disadvantage. Grocery stores are one promising arena for intervention; however how these settings can facilitate purchasing of healthier, more sustainable food in people living with obesity (PLWO) and FI remains unclear. Using an online survey (N=583), adults residing in England or Scotland with a body mass index of ≥30kg/m2 self-reported on FI, diet quality, and their experiences of shopping in a grocery store for healthy and sustainable food. Using structural equation modelling, greater FI was directly associated with barriers from the food environment (e.g., price), food preparation practices, lower healthy diet knowledge and physical ill-health. Moreover, greater FI was indirectly associated with poorer diet quality via poorer mental health and greater experiences of self-stigma associated with being food insecure. Grocery store interventions based on price or incentivisation were ranked most helpful in supporting healthier, more sustainable purchasing. These findings highlight the challenges faced by this group when shopping and underscore the need for policy development relating to price and affordability at a population-level, and for clinicians to offer tailored, holistic approaches to obesity treatment that acknowledges and minimises stigma and mental health

Weight-based discrimination in financial reward and punishment decision making: causal evidence using a novel experimental paradigm

Background/Objectives: Cross-sectional research has demonstrated weight-related stigma and discrimination, however experimental research providing causal evidence of financial-based weight discrimination is lacking. The aim of these preregistered experiments was to examine whether a novel paradigm in which participants attributed financial rewards and punishments could be used to detect weight bias. Subjects/Methods: One-hundred and twenty-one individuals participated in experiment 1 and one-hundred and sixty-six individuals participated in experiment 2. Both studies were conducted online, and participants were provided with biographies of hypothetical individuals in which weight-status was manipulated (normal weight vs. overweight/obesity) before being asked to provide rewards and punishments on their cognitive performance. In experiment 1 (within-participants design) participants observed one individual they believed to be normal weight and one individual they believed to be overweight/have obesity. In experiment 2 (between-participants design) participants observed one individual whilst also being provided with information about food addiction (Food addiction is real + individual with overweight/obesity vs. food addiction is a myth + individual with overweight/obesity vs control + individual with normal weight). Results: In experiment 1, participants punished individuals who were described as having overweight/obesity to a greater extent to individuals who were normal weight (Hedge’s g = −0.21 [95% CI: −0.02 to −0.41], p = 0.026), but there was no effect on rewards. They were also less likely to recommend individuals with overweight/obesity to pass the tasks (X2(1) = 10.05, p = 0.002). In experiment 2, participants rewarded individuals whom they believed were overweight/obese to a lesser extent than normal-weight individuals (g = 0.49 [95% CI: 0.16 to 0.83]. There was no effect on punishment, nor any impact of information regarding food addiction as real vs a myth. Conclusion: Using a novel discrimination task, these two experiments demonstrate causal evidence of weight-based discrimination in financial decision making