Psychobehavioural Factors Are More Strongly Associated with Successful Weight Management Than Predetermined Satiety Effect or Other Characteristics of Diet
Table 7
Scores of eating behaviour questionnaires (mean ± standard deviation) in the HSF and LSF groups before the beginning of the study (baseline) and during the weight-maintenance period (WM, the weeks refer to the time since the beginning of the weight-maintenance period).
HSF ()
LSF ()
Baseline
0 wks WM
12 wks WM
24 wks WM
Baseline
0 wks WM
12 wks WM
24 wks WM
a
b
GHQ
Psychological distress
9.4 ± 4.1c
10.9 ± 4.6c
8.5 ± 3.0c
0.24
0.90
TFEQ
Cognitive restraint of eating
—
—
0.30
0.38
Flexible restraint of eating
—
—
0.60
0.15
Rigid restraint of eating
—
—
0.45
0.56
Disinhibition of eating
—
—
0.19
0.78
Susceptibility to hunger
—
—
0.87
0.67
DEBQ
Restraint of eating
—
32.4±6.4c
—
0.57
0.89
Emotional eating
—
30.2 ± 12.0c
—
0.31
0.45
External eating
32.1±5.0d
—
27.2 ± 6.5c
29.4 ± 4.6d
—
0.55
0.007
BES
Binge eating
—
8.1 ± 5.4c
—
7.1 ± 5.4c
0.48
0.59
HSF: higher-satiety food group, LSF: lower-satiety food group, GHQ: General Health Questionnaire, TFEQ: Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire, DEBQ: the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire, BES: Binge Eating Scale; athe difference between the groups, bthe group versus time interaction, linear mixed-effect modelling; cHSF , LSF ; dat the baseline, the difference between the groups , Student’s -test.