Childhood adversity is associated with higher adult weight, but few investigations prospectively test mechanisms accounting for this association. Using two socioeconomically high-risk prospective longitudinal investigations, the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation (MLSRA; N = 267; 45.3% female) and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS; n = 2,587; 48.5% female), pathways between childhood adversity and later body mass index (BMI) were tested using impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, and overeating as mediators. Childhood adversity from 0 to 5 years included four types of adversities: greater unpredictability, threat/abuse, deprivation/neglect, and low socioeconomic status. Parents reported on child impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, and overeating. Height and weight were self-reported and measured at 32 and 37 years in MLSRA and at 15 years in FFCWS. FFCWS results indicated that threat, deprivation, and low socioeconomic status predicted greater impulsivity and emotion dysregulation at 5 years, which in turn predicted greater overeating at 9 years and higher BMI z-score at 15 years. Early unpredictability in FFCWS predicted higher BMI through greater impulsivity but not emotion dysregulation at age 5. MLSRA regression results replicated the threat/abuse → emotion dysregulation → overeating → higher BMI pathway. These findings suggest that different dimensions of early adversity may follow both similar and unique pathways to predict BMI.

We aimed to study the eating behavioral traits that associate with body mass index (BMI) among BMI-discordant twin pairs. This cross-sectional study examined self-reported eating behaviors in 134 healthy young adult twin pairs (57 monozygotic [MZ] and 77 same-sex dizygotic [DZ]), of whom 29 MZ and 46 DZ pairs were BMI discordant (BMI difference ≥ 3 kg/m2). In both MZ and DZ BMI-discordant pairs, the heavier co-twins reported being less capable of regulating their food intake optimally than their leaner co-twins, mainly due to ‘frequent overeating’. Furthermore, the heavier co-twins reported augmented ‘disinhibited eating’, ‘binge-eating scores’ and ‘body dissatisfaction’. The twins agreed more frequently that the heavier co-twins (rather than the leaner co-twins) ate more food in general, and more fatty food, in particular. No significant behavioral differences emerged in BMI-concordant twin pairs. Overeating — measured by ‘frequent overeating’, ‘disinhibited eating’ and ‘binge-eating score’ — was the main behavioral trait associated with higher BMI, independent of genotype and shared environment.

Grazing, or the uncontrolled, repetitive eating of small amounts of food is being increasingly recognised as an important eating behaviour associated with obesity. In spite of the need for a better understanding of this eating behaviour for improved obesity treatment, currently there is no empirically validated self-report measure to assess grazing. Therefore, to contribute to a better understanding of this relatively understudied eating pattern, a new self-report questionnaire of grazing was developed in this study. Questionnaire items were designed to reflect previous empirical descriptions of grazing. A group of 248 university students completed the Grazing Questionnaire, other measures of eating-related behaviours and cognitions, and negative emotion. Sixty-two participants completed the Grazing Questionnaire a second time to calculate its temporal stability. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a clear two-factor solution for the questionnaire, reflecting repetitive eating behaviour and a perception of loss of control. Scores on the Grazing Questionnaire were positively associated with other measures of disordered eating, especially with binge eating. Initial psychometric properties of the new questionnaire are promising. Future research is now needed to examine the prevalence of this eating behaviour in more diverse populations, including those with binge eating disorder and obesity.

Exposure to the sight and smell of food influences our momentary desire to consume it. This study explored the process by which cue exposure promotes greater consumption of food. Three hypotheses were explored, cue exposure: (i) increases the planned consumption of food; (ii) increases tolerance of larger portion sizes; (iii) arrests the development of satiety. Female participants (n 50) were each tested in two conditions. In a ‘cue condition’ they were exposed to the sight and smell of pizza for 60 s. Before and after this period they provided information about prospective and maximum tolerated portion sizes and their desire to eat pizza and other non-cued foods. Participants then consumed a fixed portion of pizza, rated their hunger and were finally offered ad libitum access to pizza. In the ‘no-cue condition’, cue exposure was replaced with a cognitive task. Cueing had little effect on tolerance of larger portion sizes or on hunger after consuming the fixed portion. Instead, it increased prospective pizza portion size and subsequent intake of pizza. Together, these results suggest that cueing increases the amount of food that people actively plan to eat. This plan is then executed, leading to greater intake. Pizza cueing also increased prospective portion size of other foods. Thus, contrary to previous reports, effects of exposure may generalise to other foods. Finally, we found evidence that restrained eaters are less ‘cue reactive’ than unrestrained eaters. In future, our approach might be adapted to consider whether heightened ‘cue reactivity’ represents a risk factor for obesity.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of appetite sensations to characterize individual overall energy intake. A group of men (n 28) and women (n 23) was recruited to record their ‘desire to eat’, ‘hunger’, ‘fullness’ and ‘prospective food consumption’ (PFC) on visual analogue scales before a standardized meal test, immediately after and every 10 min for a period of 1 h after the meal. The 1 h post-meal area under the curve (1 h AUC) and the satiety quotient (SQ) were calculated for all appetite sensations. In a second visit, all participants were invited to eat three meals in order to measure total energy intake (TEI) and food preferences. Metabolic rate (MR) was also assessed to derive daily relative energy intake (REI) by subtracting this variable from TEI (TEI−MR=REI). The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire scores were also calculated for all participants. One h AUC for fullness was the appetite sensation most strongly associated with TEI and REI (r−0·42, P≤0·003 and r−0·32, P≤0·05, respectively). SQ for fullness was the only predictor of TEI and REI (r−0·42, P≤0·0003 and r−0·30, P≤0·05, respectively). Restraint, disinhibition and hunger scores were not associated with appetite sensation variables. These results suggest that the fullness dimension seems to be a useful appetite sensation to predict long-term TEI and REI. Thus, assessment of appetite sensation such as fullness in response to a fixed load may be useful to evaluate individual overall energy intake.