4.8 Article

Training in cognitive strategies reduces eating and improves food choice

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717092115

关键词

cognitive strategies; craving; food; obesity; self control

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [K12 DA00167, P50 DA09241]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obesity rates continue to rise alarmingly, with dire health implications. One contributing factor is that individuals frequently forgo healthy foods in favor of inexpensive, high-calorie, unhealthy foods. One important mechanism underlying these choices is food craving: Craving increases with exposure to unhealthy foods (and food cues, such as advertisements) and prospectively predicts eating and weight. Prior work has shown that cognitive regulation strategies that emphasize the negative consequences of unhealthy foods reduce craving. In Studies 1 and 2, we show that cognitive strategies also increase craving for healthy foods by emphasizing their positive benefits, and change food valuation (willingness to pay) for both healthy and unhealthy foods. In Studies 3 and 4, we demonstrate that brief training in cognitive strategies (Regulation of Craving Training; ROC-T) increases subsequent healthy (vs. unhealthy) food choices. This was striking because this change in food choices generalized to nontrained items. Importantly, in Study 5, we show that brief training in cognitive strategies also reduces food consumption by 93-121 calories. Consumed calories correlated with changes in food choice. Finally, in Study 6, we show that the training component of ROC-T is necessary, above and beyond any effect of framing. Across all studies (N-TOTAL = 1,528), we find that cognitive strategies substantially change craving and food valuation, and that training in cognitive strategies improves food choices by 5.4-11.2% and reduces unhealthy eating, including in obese individuals. Thus, these findings have important theoretical, public health, and clinical implications for obesity prevention and treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据