The predictive validity of the Dutch Restrained Eating Scale

Abstract

The present study aims to determine the predictive validity of the 10‐item Dutch Restrained Eating Scale. The ultimate criterion of restrained eating is the degree to which an individual eats less than he or she actually would like to eat. Since a study on both actual food consumption and restriction of food intake is very complicated, if not impossible, the difference between actual and desired intake of energy was studied indirectly, that is, from estimates of deviations from the required energy intake. The relationships were studied between restrained eating scores and the magnitude of the deviation from energy requirement, and between restrained eating scores and intake of fat and sugar, because restriction in intake of these may also reflect dietary restraint. About 20% of the variance of scores on the Restrained Eating Scale could be explained from these measures of food intake, which suggests that the Dutch Restrained Eating Scale has moderate to good predictive validity.

The impact of nutritional labels and socioeconomic status on energy intake. An experimental field study

“…Specifically, the data in Figure 1 suggested that, although there 20 was no moderating effect of BMI on the relationship between label and consumption, obese 21 participants seemed to eat less in response to seeing either a high or low fat label compared 22 to no label. The data in Figure 2 suggested that weight-concerned participants of lowest SES 23 seemed to eat less in response to seeing either a high or low fat label compared to no label.…”

“…There was no 3-way interaction of low fat label, SES and BMI. 18 Post hoc tests indicated that seeing either label was associated with significantly reduced 19 consumption as overweight increased and with significantly reduced consumption in weight- 20 concerned participants of lowest SES. 21 These results provide some support for previous research finding paradoxical effects of 22 nutritional labelling.…”

“…Body Mass Index: calculated from self-report of height and weight. 20 3. Weight concern: assessed using two items asking whether participants were 21 currently dieting to try to lose weight or to maintain their weight (Stice, Presnell, participants who responded positively to either of the weight concern items considered to 5 be currently weight-concerned.…”

“…However, none of these 19 variables was associated with consumption. The raw data for energy consumption across the 20 two flavours of popcorn and experimental groups is shown in Table 3. Standardised 21 consumption was compared between those eating toffee and those eating salt popcorn with Figure 1 shows the effects of BMI and weight concern on the relationship between label and 2 consumption.…”

“…Strien, Frijters, Staveren, Defares, & Deurenberg, 1986). This 19 was done to minimise the response burden for a population with limited literacy and to 20 maintain the covert purpose of the study. In the context of a field experiment it was not 21 possible to accurately measure height and weight and thus these data were self reported, 22 which is known to be associated with underestimation of BMI.…”