Can sweet food‐specific inhibitory control training via a mobile application improve eating behavior in children with obesity?

Abstract

Objectives. Consumption of excess sugar, a common energy-dense nutrient-poor food, is a risk factor for obesity in school-aged children. Food-specific inhibition training, where responses to palatable food stimuli, such as sweet foods, are consistently and repeatedly inhibited, reduces sweet food intake in adults. However, no studies have yet examined the effectiveness of inhibitory control training specifically targeting sweet foods among children with high sugar cravings. We examined whether sweet food-specific inhibitory control training (SF-ICT), administered via a mobile app, reduced choice and consumption of sweet foods, and weight in a sample of children aged 7-11 with overweight or obesity and who had high sugar cravings (N = 46).Design. This study was designed as a 2 × 3 between-within design.Methods. Participants were randomly allocated to a single-blind design with two conditions: they either received 7 sessions of active or control go/no-go training in which either sweet foods or non-food cues were paired with no-go signals. Participants' weight, sweet food choice, and consumption were measured pre and post-training, and at threemonth follow-up.Results. The results revealed that participants in the active group showed a significant reduction in sweet food choice and intake from pre to post-training relative to the control group. The effects of the training on reducing sweet food intake persisted over the 3month follow-up No significant changes in weight loss were observed.Conclusions. These results provide preliminary evidence that sweet food-specific inhibitory control training (SF-ICT) via a mobile app is effective in modifying eating behavior among children with excessive consumption of sugary foods. Further research is required to clarify under what conditions the benefits of training would expand to weight loss.

Can smartphone‐based response inhibition training elicit sustained changes in appetite, preference, and cravings for energy‐dense foods? A free‐living randomized controlled trial

“…Albeit not using randomized, controlled designs, studies by Aulbach et al (2021) and Porter et al (2021) found that effect sizes associated with smartphone‐based training were lower than computer‐based training in adults and children, respectively. However, a recent study by Memarian et al (2022) found smartphone‐based RIT to be effective in reducing sweet food choice and intake in children. Taken together, it is possible that the null findings may be attributable to the mode of delivery in this study.…”

Characterizing motor impulsivity of individuals classified as overweight to obese

“…Such interventions are currently underway with varying levels of success. 31 , 32 , 46 Additional research is needed to improve the utility of these training interventions, and the current finding that individuals classified as overweight to obese have greater food-specific deficits in motor impulsivity, adds to this knowledge base. Although general response inhibition can still be a relevant construct and related to ad lib food intake in normal weight individuals, 18 other aspects of general impulsivity (impulsive personality traits, delayed discounting) are predictive of obesity.…”

“…Further understanding the dynamics of response inhibition and how it may relate to weight status is important for the development of future interventions that may use impulse control training to modify eating behaviors as a treatment for obesity or eating disorders. 31 , 32 …”

Toward a better understanding of durable behavior change by food Go/NoGo training

“…For instance, recent studies have assessed the effect of multiple sessions of fGNG on body weight. While some studies found that fGNG facilitated weight loss [13][14][15][16], especially for individuals with a high body max index (BMI), others failed to observe an effect of fGNG on body weight [17][18][19][20][21]. Methodological heterogeneity complicates a direct comparison of these results, and thwarts the attempts to explain when fGNG can lead to durable effects.…”

“…Methodological heterogeneity complicates a direct comparison of these results, and thwarts the attempts to explain when fGNG can lead to durable effects. For example, these studies differ in the training procedure (e.g., fGNG was used alone [13,14,[16][17][18][19][20] or combined with other training tasks [15,21]), the sample characteristics (e.g., the mean BMI varied from around 23.5 [17] to 33.5 [16]), the amount and frequency of training (e.g., from four [13,14,17] to 44 sessions [16]), or when body weight was measured (e.g., from one to two days [18] to three months [20] after the last session). Based on these studies, it is thus difficult to understand when and how fGNG may lead to durable behavior change.…”