Skip to main content

Examining the association between body trust and body mass index with quantile regression

Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity volume 25, pages 1813–1819 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Schachter’s externality theory posits a connection between the inability to eat according to internal cues and higher body mass index (BMI); however, related work has not investigated associations between body trust and the wide range of BMIs found in general samples. This study examined the association between body trust and BMI across levels of BMI to determine whether this relationship differed as a function of BMI level.

Methods

Participants were 534 adults (55.4% female), mean age 36 years, BMIs 15.13–67.90 (M = 27.89, SD = 7.25), recruited via MTurk. They completed self-report assessments of body trust, height, and weight. Quantile regression was utilized to estimate effects of body trust on BMI at five equidistant quantiles of BMI.

Results

Overall linear regression analyses indicated that body trust was significantly negatively associated with BMI. Quantile regression revealed a significant negative relationship at each quantile of BMI, and Wald tests indicated the association was significantly stronger at the 0.7 and 0.9 quantiles than at the 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 quantiles, which did not differ.

Conclusions

Quantile regression identified a stronger relationship between body trust and BMI at 0.7 and 0.9 quantiles than at 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 quantiles of BMI. Results align with the externality hypothesis, which suggests those at higher weights experience difficulty using internal cues to guide eating. A weaker-than-expected association between body trust and low BMI may be due to restricted range (few low-BMI participants). Replication in eating disorder samples is merited.

Level of evidence

Level V, cross-sectional descriptive study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Mehling WE, Price C, Daubenmier JJ et al (2012) The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA). PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048230

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Khalsa SS, Lapidus RC (2016) Can interoception improve the pragmatic search for biomarkers in psychiatry? Front Psychiatry 7:121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00121

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Craig AD (2003) Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Curr Opin Neurobiol 13:500–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00090-4

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Critchley HD, Garfinkel SN (2017) Interoception and emotion. Curr Opin Psychol 17:7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stevenson RJ, Mahmut M, Rooney K (2015) Individual differences in the interoceptive states of hunger, fullness and thirst. Appetite 95:44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barkeling B, King NA, Näslund E, Blundell JE (2007) Characterization of obese individuals who claim to detect no relationship between their eating pattern and sensations of hunger or fullness. Int J Obes 31:435–439. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803449

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lieverse R, Masclee A, Jansen J et al (1998) Obese women are less sensitive for the satiety effects of bombesin than lean women. Eur J Clin Nutr 52:207–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600541

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown TA, Berner LA, Jones MD et al (2017) Psychometric evaluation and norms for the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA) in a clinical eating disorders sample. Eur Eat Disord Rev 25:411–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fassino S, Pierò A, Gramaglia C, Abbate-Daga G (2004) Clinical, psychopathological and personality correlates of interoceptive awareness in anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and obesity. Psychopathology 37:168–174. https://doi.org/10.1159/000079420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khalsa SS, Craske MG, Li W et al (2015) Altered interoceptive awareness in anorexia nervosa: effects of meal anticipation, consumption and bodily arousal. Int J Eat Disord 48:889–897. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22387

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Merwin RM, Zucker NL, Lacy JL, Elliott CA (2010) Interoceptive awareness in eating disorders: distinguishing lack of clarity from non-acceptance of internal experience. Cogn Emot 24:892–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930902985845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ogden J, Wardle J (1990) Cognitive restraint and sensitivity to cues for hunger and satiety. Physiol Behav 47:477–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(90)90112-H

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Herman CP, Polivy J (1980) Restrained Eating. In: Stunkard A (ed) Obesity. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schachter S (1968) Obesity and eating. Internal and external cues differentially affect the eating behavior of obese and normal subjects. Science 161:751–756. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.161.3843.751

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schachter S (1971) Some extraordinary facts about obese humans and rats. Am Psychol 26:129–144

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Denny KN, Loth K, Eisenberg ME, Neumark-Sztainer D (2013) Intuitive eating in young adults. Who is doing it, and how is it related to disordered eating behaviors? Appetite 60:13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPET.2012.09.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Oswald A, Chapman J, Wilson C (2017) Do interoceptive awareness and interoceptive responsiveness mediate the relationship between body appreciation and intuitive eating in young women? Appetite 109:66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson LM, Reilly EE, Schaumberg K et al (2016) Contributions of mindful eating, intuitive eating, and restraint to BMI, disordered eating, and meal consumption in college students. Eat Weight Disord 21:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-015-0210-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bruce LJ, Ricciardelli LA (2016) A systematic review of the psychosocial correlates of intuitive eating among adult women. Appetite 96:454–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPET.2015.10.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dekker LV (2015) Intuitive eating, binge eating and BMI: Results of the three-year follow-up of a prospective survey of midlife New Zealand women. University of Otago, Dunedin

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gast J, Nielson AC, Hunt A, Leiker JJ (2015) Intuitive eating: associations with physical activity motivation and BMI. Am J Heal Promot 29:e91–e99. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.130305-QUAN-97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Herbert BM, Blechert J, Hautzinger M et al (2013) Intuitive eating is associated with interoceptive sensitivity. Effects on body mass index. Appetite 70:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.06.082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Dyke N, Drinkwater EJ (2014) Review article relationships between intuitive eating and health indicators: literature review. Public Health Nutr 17:1757–1766. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980013002139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6:3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG (2010) Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment Decis Making 5(5):411–419

    Google Scholar 

  26. Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, Wiebe EN (2011) The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav Res Methods 43:800. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Casler K, Bickel L, Hackett E (2013) Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput Human Behav 29:2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lin CJ, DeRoo LA, Jacobs SR, Sandler DP (2012) Accuracy and reliability of self-reported weight and height in the sister study. Public Health Nutr 15:989–999. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980011003193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barnes RD, White MA, Masheb RM, Grilo CM (2010) Accuracy of self-reported weight and height and resulting body mass index among obese binge eaters in primary care: relationship with eating disorder and associated psychopathology. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.09m00868blu

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Koenker R (2005) Quantile regression. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Petscher Y, Logan JAR (2014) Quantile regression in the study of developmental sciences. Child Dev 85:861–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12190

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Koenker R, Bassett G (1978) Regression quantiles. Econometrica 46:33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Koenker R, Machado JAF (1999) Goodness of fit and related inference processes for quantile regression. J Am Stat Assoc 94:1296–1310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10473882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Koenker R (2018) quantreg: Quantile Regression. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/quantreg/index.html

  35. Andreyeva T, Long MW, Henderson KE, Grode GM (2010) Trying to lose weight: diet strategies among Americans with overweight or obesity in 1996 and 2003. J Am Diet Assoc 110:535–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.12.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tylka TL, Annunziato RA, Burgard D et al (2014) The weight-inclusive versus weight-normative approach to health: evaluating the evidence for prioritizing well-being over weight loss. J Obes 2014:983495. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/983495

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Treasure J, Zipfel S, Micali N et al (2015) Anorexia nervosa. Nat Rev Dis Prim 1:15074. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2015.74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bacon L, Aphramor L (2011) Weight science: evaluating the evidence for a paradigm shift. Nutr J 10:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-10-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Rogers ML, Kennedy GA, Duffy ME, et al Application of quantile regression to examine the association between body mass index and eating pathology

Download references

Funding

This work was in part supported by the Military Suicide Research Consortium (MSRC), an effort supported by the Department of Defense (W81XWH-16-20003), the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF 1449440), and the National Institutes of Mental Health (R01MH111263). Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Military Suicide Research Consortium, the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Mental Health.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4301, USA

    Mary E. Duffy, Megan L. Rogers, Grace A. Kennedy, Pamela K. Keel & Thomas E. Joiner

Authors
  1. Mary E. Duffy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan L. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Grace A. Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pamela K. Keel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas E. Joiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary E. Duffy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures were approved by the Florida State University Institutional Review Board and were conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Participants read an online informed consent document and provided their electronic informed consent before taking part in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duffy, M.E., Rogers, M.L., Kennedy, G.A. et al. Examining the association between body trust and body mass index with quantile regression. Eat Weight Disord 25, 1813–1819 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-019-00810-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-019-00810-9

Keywords

  • Quantile regression
  • Body mass index
  • Weight
  • Body trust
  • Intuitive eating