Search

• We tested the effects of comfort eating on stress reactivity and recovery in women. • Stress outcomes did not differ comparing unhealthy versus healthy comfort eating. • Neither type of comfort food outperformed the no-food control condition. • Unhealthy comfort eating may not be beneficial for acute stress reduction in women. • Healthy comfort eating may be a viable replacement for unhealthy comfort eating. 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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low-income Black and Latinx individuals are disproportionately vulnerable to chronic stress and metabolic disease. Evidence suggests that these populations engage in elevated levels of comfort eating (i.e., eating comforting food to alleviate stress), which can harm diet quality. For this reason, many interventions discourage comfort eating. However, if comfort eating does indeed buffer stress, it may be a protective health behavior, particularly if healthy foods (e.g., strawberries) buffer stress as effectively as traditional unhealthy comfort foods (e.g., brownies). By choosing healthy foods, people may be able to simultaneously improve their nutrition and reduce their stress levels, both of which have the potential to reduce health disparities among chronically stressed populations. The present study tested the efficacy of healthy and unhealthy comfort eating for improving psychophysiological stress recovery. A sample of low-income Black and Latinx individuals (N = 129) were randomly assigned to consume a healthy food (e.g., grapes), unhealthy comfort food (e.g., chips), or no food after exposure to a laboratory stressor. Throughout, we measured participants' psychophysiological stress responses, including self-reported stress, rumination, autonomic nervous system activation (i.e., electrodermal activity (EDA), heart rate variability (HRV)) and neuroendocrine responses (i.e., salivary cortisol). We compared participants' stress recovery trajectories by condition and found no significant group differences (p = 0.12 for self-reported stress; p = 0.92 for EDA; p = 0.22 for HRV, p = 1.00 for cortisol). Participants in all conditions showed decreases in self-reported stress and in cortisol post-stressor (ps < 0.01), but rates of decline did not differ by condition (i.e., healthy or unhealthy comfort food, brief no-food waiting period). Although null, these results are important because they challenge the widely-held assumption that comfort foods help people decrease stress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]