The relationship between intuitive eating and body image is moderated by measured body mass index.

Natalie G Keirns, Misty A W Hawkins
Author Information
  1. Natalie G Keirns: Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States of America. Electronic address: natalie.keirns@okstate.edu.
  2. Misty A W Hawkins: Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States of America.

Abstract

Intuitive eating (IE) is a pattern of adaptive eating that has been associated with positive psychosocial and physical factors (e.g., positive body image, lower body mass index; BMI). However, BMI has also been negatively associated with body image. Our goal was to evaluate whether IE is uniquely associated with body image, independent of objective weight status (measured BMI). Further, as a secondary aim, this study analyzed potential moderators (BMI, sex, race-ethnicity) in the IE-body image relationship. Data from 136 adults (34 ± 15 years old, 74% female, 56% Caucasian) were analyzed. BMI was objectively measured in-lab. IE was measured with the Intuitive Eating Scale-2. Body image was measured as a Body Concern composite created using the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q 6.0) Weight and Shape Concern subscales. Demographic factors and covariates were measured via self-report. Regressions revealed that, after controlling for BMI and covariates, Total IE was uniquely associated with Body Concern (β = -0.463, p < .001), as were two of the IE subscales: Unconditional Permission to Eat (Unconditional Permission; β = -0.320, p < .001) and Eating for Physical Rather than Emotional Reasons (Physical Reasons; β = -0.408, p < .001). BMI was also found to be a significant moderator between IE and Body Concern for Total IE (b = 0.071, p = .017), Unconditional Permission (b = 0.067, p = .001), and Physical Reasons (b = 0.038, p = .021), with the negative association between IE and Body Concern being strongest for healthy weight individuals. Greater IE was associated with lower body image concern across the weight spectrum, though this relationship was strongest for healthy weight individuals and attenuated as BMI increased.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Eat Disord. 1994 Dec;16(4):363-70 [PMID: 7866415]
  2. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018 Mar;66:20-27 [PMID: 29274893]
  3. Obes Rev. 2018 Mar;19(3):347-363 [PMID: 29266851]
  4. N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 27;365(17):1597-604 [PMID: 22029981]
  5. Public Health Nutr. 2014 Aug;17(8):1757-66 [PMID: 23962472]
  6. Psychol Sci. 2017 Jul;28(7):872-881 [PMID: 28504919]
  7. J Couns Psychol. 2013 Jan;60(1):137-53 [PMID: 23356469]
  8. Am J Health Behav. 2010 May-Jun;34(3):286-97 [PMID: 20001186]
  9. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015 Jul-Aug;47(4):354-60.e1 [PMID: 25769516]
  10. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002 Jun;26(6):854-65 [PMID: 12037657]
  11. Body Image. 2015 Sep;15:90-7 [PMID: 26281958]
  12. Clin Sci (Lond). 2013 Feb;124(4):231-41 [PMID: 23126426]
  13. Eat Behav. 2012 Apr;13(2):158-61 [PMID: 22365803]
  14. J Couns Psychol. 2011 Jan;58(1):110-125 [PMID: 21244144]
  15. Eat Behav. 2014 Jan;15(1):151-8 [PMID: 24411768]
  16. Eat Behav. 2013 Dec;14(4):493-6 [PMID: 24183143]
  17. Am J Health Promot. 2014 Jul-Aug;28(6):380-8 [PMID: 23941103]
  18. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014 May;114(5):734-60 [PMID: 24631111]
  19. Nutr Hosp. 2014 Oct 03;31(3):995-1002 [PMID: 25726186]
  20. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 Jun;105(6):929-36 [PMID: 15942543]
  21. Appetite. 2016 Jan 1;96:454-472 [PMID: 26474781]
  22. Body Image. 2008 Sep;5(3):322-5 [PMID: 18585107]
  23. J Obes. 2013;2013:320326 [PMID: 23533721]

Grants

  1. K23 DK103941/NIDDK NIH HHS
  2. U54 GM104938/NIGMS NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Body Image
Body Mass Index
Body Weight
Eating
Emotions
Feeding and Eating Disorders
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Surveys and Questionnaires
Weight Loss
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0IEBMIimagebodyBodymeasuredassociatedConcerneatingweight001IntuitivemassindexrelationshipEatingβ = -0p <UnconditionalPermissionPhysicalReasonsb = 0p = positivefactorsloweralsouniquelyanalyzedcovariatesTotalstrongesthealthyindividualspatternadaptivepsychosocialphysicalegHowevernegativelygoalevaluatewhetherindependentobjectivestatussecondaryaimstudypotentialmoderatorssexrace-ethnicityIE-bodyData136adults34 ± 15 yearsold74%female56%Caucasianobjectivelyin-labScale-2compositecreatedusingDisorderExamination-QuestionnaireEDE-Q60WeightShapesubscalesDemographicviaself-reportRegressionsrevealedcontrolling463twosubscales:Eat320RatherEmotional408foundsignificantmoderator071017067038021negativeassociationGreaterconcernacrossspectrumthoughattenuatedincreasedintuitivemoderated

Similar Articles

Cited By