Change in craving and frequency of consuming palatable foods for non-homeostatic motives after a gut-cued eating intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known regarding consumption of palatable foods (PFs) for non-homeostatic reasons after weight-loss interventions and if baseline or change in frequency of this kind of eating can predict weight-loss outcomes. Little is also known of the relationship between PF eating for non-homeostatic motives and PF craving. Addressing these gaps is important because cravings and habitual consumption of PFs in the absence of homeostatic need contribute to obesity. METHODS: N = 30 adults with a mean 34.8 BMI completed a seven-response choice version of the PEMS (PEMS-7) before and after Gut-Cued Eating (GCE), an intervention that did not ban PFs but instructed them to eat only when stomach-hungry and stop eating before feeling too full. Photos of PFs were also rated pre- and post-GCE. RESULTS: Frequency of eating PFs for social, reward enhancement, and coping, but not conformity motives, decreased after GCE. The decreases predicted amount of weight loss independent of initial weight and demographics. PF craving also decreased and, while correlated with decreasing PF intake, it did not predict weight loss. DISCUSSION: The study is preliminary because GCE was uncontrolled. However, results warrant a controlled investigation. That craving and frequency of consuming PFs for non-homeostatic motives declined with an intervention that did not ban PFs suggests a method that may voluntarily decrease one's intake of PFs. This should facilitate weight-loss and healthy-weight maintenance. Finally, decreased eating for non-homeostatic motives suggests that individuals were no longer using PFs to cope, socialize, and enhance reward, a change with benefits beyond weight loss.

Effects of Symmetry and Apparent Distance in a Parasagittal-Mirror Variant of the Rubber Hand Illusion Paradigm.

When I see my face in a mirror, its apparent position (behind the glass) is not one that my own face could be in. I accept the face I see as my own because I have an implicit understanding of how mirrors work. The situation is different if I look at the reflection of my right hand in a parasagittal mirror (parallel to body midline) when my left hand is hidden behind the mirror. It is as if I were looking through a window at my own left hand. The experience of body ownership has been investigated using rubber hand illusion (RHI) paradigms, and several studies have demonstrated ownership of a rubber hand viewed in a frontal mirror. Our "proof of concept" study was the first to combine use of a parasagittal mirror and synchronous stroking of both a prosthetic hand (viewed in the mirror) and the participant's hand, with a manipulation of distance between the hands. The strength of the RHI elicited by our parasagittal-mirror paradigm depended not on physical distance between the hands (30, 45, or 60 cm) but on apparent distance between the prosthetic hand (viewed in the mirror) and the participant's hand. This apparent distance was reduced to zero when the prosthetic hand and participant's hand were arranged symmetrically (e.g., 30 cm in front of and behind the mirror). Thus, the parasagittal-mirror paradigm may provide a distinctive way to assess whether competition for ownership depends on spatial separation between the prosthetic hand and the participant's hand.