No abstract

No abstract

I review and critique restraint theory and develop a 3-factor model of dieting behavior. The factors--frequency of dieting and overeating, current dieting, and weight suppression--are embedded within a 3-dimensional grid that also considers mechanisms mediating the effects of dieting and the influence of weight status. I argue that the eating behavior exhibited by restrained eaters stems from their frequent dieting and overeating in the past rather than from their current state of dietary or cognitive restraint. Evidence is reviewed, indicating that current dieting and weight suppression have different effects on eating than does restraint. The 3-factor model is used to reinterpret findings consistent with restraint theory and to explain findings inconsistent with restraint theory. Finally, clinical and research implications of the 3-factor model are discussed.

Background:The 21-item Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-R21) is a scale that measures three domains of eating behavior: cognitive restraint (CR), uncontrolled eating (UE) and emotional eating (EE). Objectives: To assess the factor structure and reliability of TFEQ-R21 (and if necessary, refine the structure) in diverse populations of obese and non-obese individuals. Design: Data were obtained from obese adults in a United States/Canadian clinical trial (n ¼ 1741), and overweight, obese and normal weight adults in a US web-based survey (n ¼ 1275). Confirmatory factor analyses were employed to investigate the structure of TFEQ-R21 using baseline data from the clinical trial. The model was refined to obtain adequate fit and internal consistency. The refined model was then tested using the web-based data. Relationships between TFEQ domains and body mass index (BMI) were examined in both populations. Results: Clinical data indicated that TFEQ-R21 needed refinement. Three items were removed from the CR domain, producing the revised version TFEQ-R18V2 (Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ¼ 0.91). Testing TFEQ-R18V2 in the web-based sample supported the revised structure (CFI ¼ 0.96; Cronbach's coefficient a of 0.78-0.94). Associations with BMI were small. In the clinical study, the CR domain showed a significant and negative association with BMI. On the basis of the web-based survey, it was shown that the relationship between BMI and CR is population-dependent (obese versus non-obese, healthy versus diabetics). Conclusions: In two independent datasets, the TFEQ-R18V2 showed robust factor structure and good reliability. It may provide a useful tool for characterizing UE, CR and EE.

The finding that dietary restraint scales predict onset of bulimic pathology has been interpreted as suggesting that dieting causes this eating disturbance, despite the dearth of evidence that these scales are valid measures of dietary restriction. The authors conducted 4 studies that tested whether dietary restraint scales were inversely correlated with unobtrusively measured caloric intake. These studies, which varied in foods consumed, settings, and populations, indicated that common dietary restraint scales were largely uncorrelated with acute caloric intake. Results suggest that these scales are not valid measures of short-term dietary restriction and imply that it may be prudent to reinterpret findings from studies thai use these scales, including those that suggest dietary restraint is a risk factor for bulimic pathology.