Search

Background Dieting has historically been the main behavioural treatment paradigm for overweight/obesity, although a non-dieting paradigm has more recently emerged based on the criticisms of the original dieting approach. There is a dearth of research contrasting why these approaches are adopted. To address this, we conducted a qualitative investigation into the determinants of dieting and non-dieting approaches based on the perspectives and experiences of overweight/obese Australian adults. Methods Grounded theory was used inductively to generate a model of themes contrasting the determinants of dieting and non-dieting approaches based on the perspectives of 21 overweight/obese adults. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews to elicit in-depth individual experiences and perspectives. Results Several categories emerged which distinguished between the adoption of a dieting or non-dieting approach. These categories included the focus of each approach (weight/image or lifestyle/health behaviours); internal or external attributions about dieting failure; attitudes towards established diets, and personal autonomy. Personal autonomy was also influenced by another category; the perceived knowledge and self-efficacy about each approach, with adults more likely to choose an approach they knew more about and were confident in implementing. The time perspective of change (short or long-term) and the perceived identity of the person (fat/dieter or healthy person) also emerged as determinants of dieting or non-dieting approaches respectively. Conclusions The model of determinants elicited from this study assists in understanding why dieting and non-dieting approaches are adopted, from the perspectives and experiences of overweight/obese adults. Understanding this decision-making process can assist clinicians and public health researchers to design and tailor dieting and non-dieting interventions to population subgroups that have preferences and characteristics suitable for each approach.

Background There is a dearth of research comparing why dieting and non-dieting approaches are adopted. A greater understanding of reasons underlying dieting and non-dieting attempts will help to identify target beliefs for interventions to support and motivate adults to attempt whatever approach they are willing and/or able to pursue. We investigated the predictors of dieting and non-dieting approaches in Australian adults using predictors that were identified in a previous qualitative study. Methods We conducted a prospective study, with two waves of data collection occurring 4 weeks apart. At baseline, participants completed a questionnaire assessing constructs drawn from the theory of planned behaviour (attitude, subjective norm, and self-efficacy), past behaviour, non-planning, attributions for dieting failure, weight control beliefs, and dieting and non-dieting intentions. We used path modelling to analyse responses. Results At baseline, 719 adults (52.2% male) aged between 18 and 76 completed the questionnaire. Four weeks later, 64% of participants (n = 461) reported on their dieting and non-dieting behaviour in the past month. Past behaviour, attitude, subjective norm, and self-identity significantly predicted dieting intentions. Dieting intentions and past behaviour significantly predicted dieting behaviour, while non-planning and self-efficacy did not. The model explained 74.8% of the variance in intention and 52.9% of the variance in behaviour. While most findings were similar for the non-dieting model, subjective norms and self-identity did not predict intention, while self-efficacy and self-identity both predicted non-dieting behaviour directly. The non-dieting model explained 58.2% of the variance in intention and 37.5% of the variance in behaviour. Conclusions The findings from this study provide support for the application of TPB and identity theory constructs in the context of both dieting and non-dieting behaviour. Self-efficacy and self-identity appear more relevant to non-dieting behaviour than dieting behaviour, while subjective norms was more influential in predicting dieting. Practitioners wishing to encourage either approach in their clients should attempt to modify the constructs that influence each approach. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4131-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.