Emerging evidence indicates that for some people, the COVID-19 lockdowns are a time of high risk for increased food intake. A clearer understanding of which individuals are most at risk of overeating during the lockdown period is needed to inform interventions that promote healthy diets and prevent weight gain during lockdowns. An online survey collected during the COVID-19 lockdown (total n=875; analysed n=588; 33.4±12.6 years; 82% UK-based; mostly white, educated, and not home schooling) investigated reported changes to the amount consumed and changes to intake of high energy dense (HED) sweet and savoury foods. The study also assessed which eating behaviour traits predicted a reported increase of HED sweet and savoury foods and tested whether coping responses moderated this relationship. Results showed that 48% of participants reported increased food intake in response to the COVID-19 lockdown. There was large individual variability in reported changes and lower craving control was the strongest predictor of increased HED sweet and savoury food intake. Low cognitive restraint also predicted greater increases in HED sweet snacks and HED savoury meal foods. Food responsiveness, enjoyment of food, emotional undereating, emotional overeating and satiety responsiveness were not significant predictors of changes to HED sweet and savoury food intake. High scores on acceptance coping responses attenuated the conditional effects of craving control on HED sweet snack intake. Consistent with previous findings, the current research suggests that low craving control is a risk factor for increased snack food intake during lockdown and may therefore represent a target for intervention.

Incorporating an implementation intention manipulation alongside a self-affirmation manipulation had a detrimental effect on exercise behavior; participants receiving both manipulations exercised significantly less in the week following the intervention.

BackgroundA growing number of studies suggest that exposure to cues which are associated with weight control can prime or prompt controlled food intake in tempting food environments. However, findings are mixed and understanding which types of cues and for whom such cues may be most effective is needed to inform subsequent research and societal applications. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the effects of exposure to weight control cues compared with control cues on food intake.MethodsPsycINFO, Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched using key terms. Hedge’s g was used to calculate effect sizes based on mean food intake, standard deviations and sample sizes extracted from relevant publications and, a random effects model was used for the meta-analysis.ResultsTwenty-five articles consisting of 26 studies were eligible. Data from 25 studies (31 effect sizes) were available for the meta-analysis. Overall, weight control cues reduced food intake, albeit to a trivial effect (ES: -0.149, 95% CI: -0.271 to − 0.027). Subgroup analyses when studies which induced negative affect were removed showed that for individuals with strong weight control goals the effect was small-to-moderate (ES: -0.440, 95% CI: -0.718 to − 0.163), whereas for individuals with weak weight control goals this effect was trivial and non-significant (ES: 0.014, 95% CI: -0.249 to 0.278). Cue type and level of engagement did not significantly moderate the effect; however, specific cues (low-calorie foods and thin models) and attended engagement yielded significant effects. Caution is needed interpreting these findings as most studies were rated with high risk of bias and a number of studies could not be included in the subgroup analyses.ConclusionsBased on the data available, weight control cues reduce food intake in individuals with strong weight control goals. Further research is needed to explore longer term effects of cue exposure and confirm underlying mechanisms. PROSPERO registry#CRD42016052396.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12966-018-0698-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dietary restraint is known to break down in the face of tempting foods. Previous research suggests exposure to cues associated with slimming such as images or odours act as prompts to restrict intake of a tempting snack in dieters. The effects of consuming diet-congruent foods on subsequent intake of a meal have not yet been investigated. Thus, using a repeated measures design 26 female participants (dieters or non-dieters) consumed a diet-congruent (100 kcal salad), hedonic (100 kcal garlic bread) or neutral (0 kcal water) preload. A lexical decision task measured the salience of diet and hedonic thoughts and participants were then offered pizza as a main meal. Appetite sensations were measured throughout the study. Compared to the hedonic and neutral preload, a diet-congruent preload reduced dieters' entire meal intake by 21%. In contrast, non-dieters consumed 9% more in the hedonic preload condition compared to the neutral preload, yet showed no differences between the diet-congruent and other conditions. Salad lowered participants desire to eat and increased fullness compared to garlic bread and water preloads. Dieters were also less hungry after the salad compared to the garlic bread and water preloads. Consuming a diet-congruent first course may prompt lower intake at a meal, in part due to facilitating resolve to refrain from overeating a tempting second course.

BackgroundLow energy–dense (LED) foods reduce energy intake (EI); whether this effect is sustained over time and during weight loss is unknown.ObjectiveThis trial examined the effects of LED compared with high energy–dense (HED) meals on appetite, EI, and control over eating in the laboratory and during a weight-management program that encourages unrestricted intake of LED foods [Slimming World, UK (SW)] compared with a self-led Standard Care program [NHS weight-loss plan (SC)].MethodsOverweight and obese women [n = 96; mean ± SD age: 41.03 ± 12.61 y; mean ± SD body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.00 ± 3.61] were recruited from the SW or SC programs. Primary outcomes included appetite, food preferences (liking and wanting for LED and HED foods), cravings, and evening meal EI (LED, HED) in response to calorie-matched LED (≤0.8 kcal/g) and HED (≥2.5 kcal/g) breakfast and lunch meals. Probe-day tests were conducted at weeks 3 and 4 and repeated at weeks 12 and 13 in a within-day crossover design. Secondary outcomes, including body weight and program experience, were measured from weeks 1 to 14 in a parallel-group design. Dietary compliance was monitored with the use of weighed food diaries at weeks 3 and 12.ResultsIntention-to-treat (ITT) and completers analyses showed that the SW group lost more weight than the SC group [ITT: −5.9% (95% CI: −4.7%, –7.2%) compared with −3.5% (−2.3%, −4.8%), P < 0.05; completers: −6.2% (−4.8%, −7.6%) compared with 3.9% (−2.5%, −5.2%), P < 0.05]. The SW group reported greater control over eating and more motivation to continue the program compared with the SC group. LED meals increased sensations of fullness and reduced hunger on probe days (P < 0.001). Total-day EI was 1057 ± 73 kcal less (95% CI: 912, 1203 kcal; 36%) under LED compared with HED conditions (P < .001). Liking for LED and HED foods and wanting for HED foods were lower before lunch under LED compared with HED conditions, and liking decreased to a greater extent after the LED lunch. The SW group reported fewer cravings under LED compared with HED conditions (P < 0.05). On probe days, appetite and EI outcomes did not differ between weeks 3 and 12 or between the SW and SC groups.ConclusionLED meals improve appetite control in women attempting weight loss and the effect is sustainable. Consumption of LED meals likely contributed to weight loss in the SW program. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02012426.

No abstract

No abstract

This trial compared weight loss outcomes over 14 weeks in women showing low- or high-satiety responsiveness (low- or high-satiety phenotype (LSP, HSP)) measured by a standardised protocol. Food preferences and energy intake (EI) after low and high energy-density (LED, HED) meals were also assessed. Ninety-six women (n 52 analysed; 41·24 (SD 12·54) years; 34·02 (sd 3·58) kg/m2) engaged in one of two weight loss programmes underwent LED and HED laboratory test days during weeks 3 and 12. Preferences for LED and HED food (Leeds Food Preference Questionnaire) and ad libitum evening meal and snack EI were assessed in response to equienergetic LED and HED breakfasts and lunches. Weekly questionnaires assessed control over eating and ease of adherence to the programme. Satiety quotients based on subjective fullness ratings post LED and HED breakfasts determined LSP (n 26) and HSP (n 26) by tertile splits. Results showed that the LSP lost less weight and had smaller reductions in waist circumference compared with HSP. The LSP showed greater preferences for HED foods, and under HED conditions, consumed more snacks (kJ) compared with HSP. Snack EI did not differ under LED conditions. LSP reported less control over eating and reported more difficulty with programme adherence. In conclusion, low-satiety responsiveness is detrimental for weight loss. LED meals can improve self-regulation of EI in the LSP, which may be beneficial for longer-term weight control.