Little is known about whether comfort eating actually functions to reduce psychological stress. In addition, the effectiveness of comfort eating may be particularly relevant in the context of depression, but no study has tested whether comfort eating processes might depend on severity of depressive symptomology. This study tested 1) whether greater comfort eating statistically buffers the relationship between adverse life events and perceived psychological stress at age 18-19, and 2) whether potential stress-buffering effects may differ by level of depressive symptoms. These relationships were examined in the NHLBI Growth and Health Study, comprising 2379 young adult women. Participants self-reported experiences with adverse life events, their perceived psychological stress, and whether they tended to eat more while experiencing certain negative emotions. As hypothesized, the relationship between adverse life events and perceived stress depended on comfort eating status (p = .033). The effect of adverse events on perceived stress was attenuated among comfort eaters compared to non-comfort eaters (p = .004), but this buffering effect was not shown in participants with an elevated level of depressive symptoms. In conclusion, among young adult women without high depressive symptoms, comfort eaters may experience reduced perceived stress compared to those who do not engage in this behavior. Intervention researchers should also consider the possible benefits of comfort eating.

Both psychological and physical stressors induce the secretion of glucocorticoids and insulin, which increase the consumption of palatable high-fat, high-sugar "comfort foods." Chronic engagement in stress-induced eating behavior leads to visceral fat accumulation, which in turn dampens hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity. The joint role of stress-induced eating and abdominal fat stores in attenuating physiological stress responses has been well characterized in nonhuman animal models; however, very few studies to date have investigated these processes in humans. Preliminary evidence from human studies similarly indicates that chronic stress exposure is associated with increased consumption of palatable food, greater abdominal fat, and dampened cortisol response to acute stress. In this chapter, we describe the cross-species data demonstrating these attenuated stress responses, also considering the endocrine, affective, and neural mechanisms for reinforcing stress-induced eating processes. We conclude with a discussion of the remaining gaps in the literature and directions for future research. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Time spent sitting is associated with negative health outcomes, motivating some individuals to adopt standing desk workstations. This study represents the first investigation of the effects of standing desk use on reading comprehension and creativity. In a counterbalanced, within-subjects design, 96 participants completed reading comprehension and creativity tasks while both sitting and standing. Participants self-reported their mood during the tasks and also responded to measures of expended effort and task difficulty. In addition, participants indicated whether they expected that they would perform better on work-relevant tasks while sitting or standing. Despite participants' beliefs that they would perform worse on most tasks while standing, body position did not affect reading comprehension or creativity performance, nor did it affect perceptions of effort or difficulty. Mood was also unaffected by position, with a few exceptions: Participants exhibited greater task engagement (i.e., interest, enthusiasm, and alertness) and less comfort while standing rather than sitting. In sum, performance and psychological experience as related to task completion were nearly entirely uninfluenced by acute (~30-min) standing desk use.

Many people eat unhealthy foods that are high in calories, fat, or sugar when feeling stressed, yet little is known about whether this unhealthy comfort eating actually comforts. Additionally, prior research has not tested whether healthy comfort eating of fruits and vegetables might also alleviate stress, or whether comfort eating during the stress anticipation phase versus immediately after a stressful event is more beneficial for stress relief. The present experiment tested whether unhealthy and healthy comfort eating reduce acute psychophysiological responses to a socially evaluative stressor. Participants (N = 150 healthy women) underwent the Trier Social Stress Test in the lab and were randomly assigned to one of five conditions according to a 2 (food type: unhealthy vs. healthy) x 2 (eating timing: during stress anticipation vs. after the stressor) + 1 (no food control) between-subjects design. Stress outcomes included mood, cognitive appraisals, rumination, salivary cortisol, heart rate variability, and pre-ejection period. Unhealthy and healthy comfort eating did not dampen reactivity or enhance recovery of psychophysiological stress compared to control, and no differences in reactivity or recovery were found by comfort food type. Findings suggest that by replacing unhealthy comfort foods with fruits and vegetables, women will not be sacrificing any stress-reducing benefits and can inherently improve the quality of their diet while avoiding potential drawbacks of unhealthy comfort eating (e.g., links with abdominal obesity).

Laboratory research has found that individuals will consume more calories and make unhealthy food choices when in the presence of an overweight individual, sometimes even regardless of what that individual is eating. This study expanded these laboratory paradigms to the field to examine how weight salience influences eating in the real world. More specifically, we tested the threshold of the effect of weight salience of food choice to see if a more subtle weight cue (e.g., images) would be sufficient to affect food choice. Attendees (N = 262) at Obesity Week 2013, a weight-salient environment, viewed slideshows containing an image of an overweight individual, an image of a thin individual, or no image (text only), and then selected from complimentary snacks. Results of ordinal logistic regression analysis showed that participants who viewed the image of the overweight individual had higher odds of selecting the higher calorie snack compared to those who viewed the image of the thin individual (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = [1.04, 3.04]), or no image (OR = 2.42, 95% CI = [1.29, 4.54]). Perceiver BMI category did not moderate the influence of image on food choice, as these results occurred regardless of participant BMI. These findings suggest that in the context of societal weight salience, weight-related cues alone may promote unhealthy eating in the general public.

Objectives

To assess levels of two types of anti-fat bias in obesity specialists, explicit bias, or consciously accessible anti-fat attitudes, and implicit bias, or attitudes that are activated outside of conscious awareness, were examined. This study also assessed changes over time by comparing levels of bias in 2013 to published data from 2001.

Methods

In 232 attendees at the ObesityWeek 2013 conference, we measured explicit anti-fat bias and conducted the Implicit Association Test. These data were compared to those from a study conducted at the 2001 meeting of this group.

Results

Participants exhibited significant implicit and explicit anti-fat/pro-thin bias. Positivity of professional experience with obesity, but not type of professional experience, was correlated with lower explicit anti-fat bias. Compared to 2001, the 2013 sample had lower levels of implicit bias and higher levels of explicit bias.

Conclusions

Although implicit anti-fat attitudes appeared to decrease from 2001 to 2013, explicit anti-fat attitudes increased. Future research should examine whether increasing positive experiences with obese patients reduces anti-fat bias among health professionals. Together, these results suggest that despite the current climate of widespread anti-fat bias, there are pathways toward understanding and ameliorating this bias.