Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
AND
Objective: This study investigated experimentally whether acute stress alters food choice during a meal. The study
was designed to test claims of selective effects of stress on appetite for specific sensory and nutritional categories
of food and interactions with eating attitudes. Methods: Sixty-eight healthy men and women volunteered for a study
on the effects of hunger on physiology, performance, and mood. Eating attitudes and food preferences were
measured on entry to the study. The stressed group prepared a 4-minute speech, expecting it to be filmed and
assessed after a midday meal, although in fact speeches were not performed. The ad libitum meal included sweet,
salty, or bland high- and low-fat foods. The control group listened to a passage of neutral text before eating the meal.
Blood pressure, heart rate, mood, and hunger were measured at baseline and after the 10-minute preparatory period,
when appetite for 34 foods and food intake were recorded. Results: Increases in blood pressure and changes in mood
confirmed the effectiveness of the stressor. Stress did not alter overall intake, nor intake of, or appetite for the six
food categories. However, stressed emotional eaters ate more sweet high-fat foods and a more energy-dense meal
than unstressed and nonemotional eaters. Dietary restraint did not significantly affect appetitive responses to stress.
Conclusions: Increased eating of sweet fatty foods by emotional eaters during stress, found here in a laboratory
setting, may underlie the previously reported finding that dietary restraint or female gender predicts stress-induced
eating. Stress may compromise the health of susceptible individuals through deleterious stress-related changes in
food choice. Key words: stress, food choice, emotional eating, dietary restraint, appetite, nutrition.
INTRODUCTION
There is increasing evidence that stress may affect
health not only through its direct biological effects but
also through changes in health behaviors that themselves influence health (1, 2). Clearly, one such health
behavior is food choice: that is, stress may lead to ill
health through unhealthy changes in diet as well as
more general effects on appetite (3).
Stress and diet associations are particularly complex. Stress is associated with biological changes that
might be expected to reduce food intake, at least in the
short-term, such as adrenaline-induced glycogenolysis, slowed gastric emptying, autonomic shunting of
blood from gut to musculature, and activation of the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (4, 5). Yet the experimental results have been inconsistent. Animal
studies have produced evidence of both hyperphagia
and hypophagia in response to stress (57). Research
on everyday food intake in human subjects under lowFrom the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) Health Behaviour
Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University
College London, London, United Kingdom.
Address reprint requests to: Professor Jane Wardle, ICRF Health
Behaviour Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,
University College London, 2-16 Torrington Place, London WC1E
6BT, United Kingdom. Email: j.wardle@ucl.ac.uk
Received October 18, 1999; revision received May 3, 2000.
and high-stress conditions has also produced inconsistent results. Stress in the workplace has been associated with higher energy intake in two studies (8, 9),
examination stress has produced mixed results (10,
11), and surgical stress, probably the most extreme
stressor examined, has been found to have no consistent effect (12). These varying results may be related to
the nature of the stressor; for example, mild stressors
could induce hyperphagia, and more severe stressors,
hypophagia (7, 13).
Alternatively, there could be significant individual
differences in responses to stress, with the study samples varying in the proportions of the different response types. Pollard et al. (11) found that students
who were high on anxiety and low on social support
were more likely to show a hyperphagic response, and
Wardle et al. (9) found that dietary restraint levels
moderated the response to work stress. An individual
difference model is supported by data from both prospective (14) and retrospective (15, 16) self-report
studies, showing either increased, decreased, or no
change in eating during stress but with consistent effects within individuals.
The importance of individual differences in the eating response to stress has also been borne out by a
number of laboratory studies (13). Such studies typically induce stress through one of a number of standard procedures while assessing food intake, ostensibly as incidental to some other task, such as making
taste ratings. A consistent pattern is that participants
scoring highly on a measure of dietary restraint eat
more under stress, whereas intake is the same or lower
in unrestrained eaters (1722).
This rather complex pattern of results suggests that
more attention needs to be directed toward specifying
the nature and intensity of the stress response, and the
853
G. OLIVER et al.
characteristics and motivational state of the participants (eg, hunger, restraint, and emotional eating tendency). Furthermore, in these studies, usually only a
single food type is available, typically high in fat
and/or sugar, such as ice cream. Thus, food intake has
been conflated with food choice. Understanding
which foods are selected or avoided under stress is a
crucial issue, both because it is necessary for theoretical interpretation of the mechanisms involved and for
prediction of harmful effects of stress on health.
In contrast to the laboratory studies, self-reported
retrospective (15, 23) and prospective data (8, 9, 11)
suggest that food choice does change under stress,
with a tendency toward a relative increase in sugary,
fatty (often snack-type) foods. Therefore, experimental
tests of effects of stress on eating should take into
account the sensory properties of foods.
Grunberg and Straub (24) extended the usual laboratory paradigm by providing participants with a range
of foods differing in taste qualities (sweet, salty, and
bland), although these were still snack foods presented
incidentally to the main task of viewing a film (used
for stress induction). They found that men in the
stressed group ate less than men in the control group.
In women there were no significant differences, although stressed women did show a trend toward a
modest increase in consumption of sweet and bland
foods with no change in intake of salty foods. These
gender differences may have reflected differences in
dietary restraint, which is known to be higher in
women (16, 25, 26), but unfortunately, as the authors
noted, they did not include a measure of restraint. The
ecological validity of Grunberg and Straubs (24) findings may also be limited by the fact that the amount of
food eaten by their participants was very small (20 g
per person on average), whereas the variation was
relatively high, suggesting that not all subjects were
choosing to eat.
The present study was designed to extend the work
of Grunberg and Straub (24), including foods from the
sweet, salty, and bland taste categories and high- and
low-fat examples within those sensory groups. Aside
from replicating the work of Grunberg and Straub (24),
analyzing effects by taste category may be important
because stress has been shown to affect taste perception (27). A wider range of foods was provided to
represent the kinds of foods that might be eaten in both
meals and snacks. Participants were tested when they
were moderately deprived of food and given a test
meal around midday to increase the likelihood of eating beyond brief tasting.
Dietary restraint and emotional eating tendencies
were assessed as possible explanatory variables. Previous studies that incorporated restraint used the Re-
854
Stress Manipulation
Anticipation of a speech performance was used as a stressor.
Participants were told that they would be making a 4-minute speech
that would be recorded by video equipment set up prominently in
the laboratory and subsequently assessed. Written instructions for
the speech task, based on those used by Kapczinski et al. (31), were
given. Participants were invited to select 1 of 10 controversial topics
for their speech and to prepare notes for a period of 10 minutes
before receiving a meal. The speech was scheduled to take place
immediately after the meal, and participants were led to believe that
the study was about hunger and its effect on performance and that
want to eat this food). The appetite ratings had previously been
found to show adequate test-retest reliability when administered to
12 different adults on two occasions 30 minutes apart (mean r
0.83, p .01). The ratings were completed after the stress (or
control) manipulations, immediately before the meal was served.
The photographs were presented in random order to each subject to
control for possible order effects between sequentially presented
foods.
Food Intake. Participants were allowed to eat freely for 15 minutes from a buffet lunch consisting of, as far as was practicable, foods
from each of the taste categories described above (Table 2). The
foods were weighed to the nearest 0.1 g before and after the meal to
determine the amount consumed.
Data Analysis
The main hypotheses were tested by ANOVAs; the interactions
between stress condition (group) and individual difference variables, such as gender, restraint, and emotional eating, were of primary interest. In most cases, there was an a priori prediction for the
direction of the interaction effect, and so an level of 0.05 was taken
as significant, despite quite large numbers of statistical tests. Unexpected results that achieved this level of significance were interpreted cautiously. Multiple comparison tests on the same dependent
855
G. OLIVER et al.
TABLE 1.
Foods Included in the Food Desirability Rating With Relevant Nutritional Compositiona
Food
Category
Bland
Low fat
High fat
Salty
Low fat
High fat
Sweet
Low fat
High fat
Energy
(kcal)
Sugars
(g)
Fat
(g)
Energy as
Fat (%)
Sodium
(mg)
Steamed rice
Boiled potatoes
Bread (white)
Raw carrot
Raw tomato
Steamed fish
Avocado
Fried cod in batter
Unsalted peanuts
Boiled egg
Clotted cream
Greek yogurt
138
72
217
35
17
83
190
247
564
147
586
115
Trace
0.7
3
7.4
3.1
0.0
0.5
Trace
6.2
Trace
2.3
2
1.3
0.1
1.3
0.4
0.3
0.9
19.5
15.4
46.1
10.8
63.5
9.1
8.5
1.3
5.4
10.3
15.9
9.8
92.4
56.1
73.6
66.1
97.5
71.2
1
7
530
25
9
65
6
160
2
140
18
71
Prawns
Smoked salmon
Marmite (autolysed yeast extract)
Pretzels
Noodles and soy sauce
Cheddar cheese
Crisps (potato chips, salted)
Dry-roasted peanuts
Salami
Frankfurters (hot dogs)
Bacon
107
142
172
381
70
412
546
589
491
274
422
0
0
0
0
1.7
0.1
0.7
3.8
Trace
Trace
0.0
1.8
4.5
0.7
3.5
0.5
34.4
37.6
49.8
45.2
45.2
36.0
15.1
28.5
3.7
8.3
6.4
75.1
62.0
76.1
82.9
82.9
76.8
1590
1880
4500
1720
1424
670
1070
790
980
980
1990
Honey
Boiled sweets (candies)
Lemon sorbet
Banana
Meringue
Milk chocolate
Vanilla ice cream
Jam doughnut
Fudge
Chocolate-coated biscuit
Sponge cake
288
327
131
95
379
529
194
336
441
524
459
76.4
86.9
34.2
20.9
95.4
56.5
22.1
18.8
81.1
43.4
30.9
0.0
Trace
Trace
0.3
Trace
30.3
9.8
14.5
13.7
27.6
26.3
0.0
Trace
Trace
2.8
Trace
51.6
45.5
38.8
28.0
47.4
51.6
11
25
69
1
110
120
69
180
160
160
350
Food
variable were not required by this design. In addition, some relationships between physiological and psychological variables were
assessed by using Pearsons product-moment correlation.
RESULTS
Participant Characteristics
The background characteristics of the group are
summarized in Table 3. Participants were between
18 and 46 years old. The men were predictably
heavier (F(1,64) 117.17, p .001) and taller (F(1,64)
46.04, p .001) than the women, but body mass index
did not differ between the sexes. There were no differences between groups randomized to the stress or control
856
condition on any of these measures. There were no significant group or gender differences in trait anxiety.
As expected, dietary restraint scores were significantly higher in women (F(1,64) 13.50, p .001), and
women scored higher than men on the emotional eating
scale (F(1,64) 4.99, p .05), but there were no gender
differences in external eating. There were no differences
between stress and control groups in dietary restraint,
emotional eating, or external eating.
Ratings for liking of the foods to be used in the
study showed that fatty sweet foods were most liked
by the sample as a whole (see Table 3) and that salty
low-fat foods were the least liked. Men reported
Energy
(kcal)
Carbohydrate
(g)
Sugars
(g)
Protein
(g)
Total
Fat
(g)
White bread
Raw carrot
Raw tomato
Peanut butter
Flora (soft margarine)
Butter
252
35
17
592
739
737
48.5
7.9
3.1
12.5
1.0
Trace
1.6
7.4
3.1
6.5
1.0
Trace
9.6
0.3
0.3
23.6
0.2
0.5
2.2
0.6
0.7
49.7
81.6
81.7
500
25
9
400
800
750
5 rolls (200 g)
100 g
1 ( 80 g)
70 g (2 35-g jars)
50 g (5 10-g packets)
35 g (5 7-g packets)
172
1.8
0.0
39.7
0.7
4500
24 g (3 8-g packets)
412
557
600
0.1
49.9
8.6
0.1
0.4
3.8
25.5
4.5
29.0
34.4
37.7
50.0
700
600
500
Mandarin
Grapes
Strawberry jam
Cake (cherry, slices)
Chocolate biscuits
35
60
265
407
493
8.0
15.4
66.0
50.9
66.5
8.0
15.4
66.0
34.2
28.5
0.1
0.4
0.4
3.9
6.8
0.9
0.1
0.1
20.8
24.1
2
2
Trace
80
450
Food
Category
Bland
Low fat
High fat
Salty
Low fat
High fat
Sweet
Low fat
High fat
Food
Quantity Provided
100 g (grated)
30 g
200 g
2 medium (300 g)
100 g
70 g (2 35-g jars)
100 g (3 slices)
70 g (4 biscuits)
Characteristics of Participantsa
Stress Group
N
Age (y)
Body weight (kg)
Height (m)
Body mass index
Psychological indices
Trait anxiety (STAI)
Self-esteem (Rosenberg)
Measures of eating behavior (DEBQ)
Dietary restraint
Emotional eating
External eating
General food-liking scores
Bland
Low fat
High fat
Salty
Low fat
High fat
Sweet
Low fat
High fat
a
Sodium
(mg)
Control Group
Men
Women
Men
Women
14
25.6 4.8
70.9 8.8
1.80 0.07
21.7 2.2
20
26.5 7.0
58.5 8.7
1.63 0.7
22.0 2.5
13
26.9 6.7
76.3 9.4
1.82 0.06
23.1 2.6
21
25.3 4.2
59.7 7.8
1.66 0.05
21.7 2.3
40.9 10.7
21.3 4.8
44.2 8.7
22.2 3.9
42.1 11.2
22.5 4.6
42.3 10.8
23.0 5.7
2.15 0.89
2.18 0.71
3.09 0.62
2.49 0.81
2.59 0.86
3.21 0.49
1.66 0.60
2.50 1.08
3.33 0.51
2.79 0.85
3.07 0.91
3.37 0.53
1.57 0.81
1.78 0.60
1.82 0.96
0.96 1.10
2.01 0.52
1.32 1.03
1.84 1.15
0.81 1.20
0.96 1.64
1.92 0.89
1.82 1.14
0.73 1.58
1.37 1.23
1.88 0.90
0.47 1.54
0.56 1.43
1.37 0.96
1.99 1.25
1.27 1.29
2.08 1.27
1.62 1.24
2.50 0.87
1.36 1.31
1.61 1.79
foods). There were no significant differences in general food preferences between stress and control
groups.
857
G. OLIVER et al.
Effectiveness of the Stress Manipulation
At baseline, there were no differences between the
stress and control groups in heart rate, SBP, or DBP
(see Table 4). Men in both groups had significantly
higher SBP (F(1,64) 25.98, p .001) and DBP
(F(1,64) 4.28, p .05) than women. The change in
heart rate after the stress manipulation did not reach
significance (group-by-time interaction: F(1,64)
2.82, p .10; Table 4). SBP increased over time (from
baseline to after stress) in the stressed group and decreased in the control group (group-by-time interaction: F(1,64) 14.41, p .001; Table 4). The pattern
was the same for men and women. DBP decreased in
the control but not in the stress group (group-by-time
interaction: F(1,64) 4.42, p .05).
There were no significant differences between stress
and control subjects in positive or negative affect
scores at baseline. Negative affect scores were logtransformed to produce a normal distribution. As predicted, subjects in the stress group showed a significant increase in negative affect from baseline, whereas
those in the control group showed a reduction in negative affect relative to baseline (group-by-time interaction: F(1,64) 11.77, p .001). For positive affect, the
control group showed a decrease, whereas in the
stressed group positive affect remained constant
TABLE 4.
Physiological indices
Heart rate (beats/min)
Baseline
T1
Change
SBP (mm Hg)
Baseline
T1
Change
DBP (mm Hg)
Baseline
T1
Change
Psychological indices
Positive affect
Baseline
T1
Change
Negative affect
Baseline
T1
Change
Perceived stressfulness of manipulation
858
Control Group
Women
Men
Women
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
65.6
66.0
0.4
9.4
11.2
10.0
68.2
71.4
3.3
12.4
11.6
8.2
63.9
62.9
1.0
8.7
9.4
8.5
71.6
69.1
2.5
13.7
12.8
7.8
129.1
130.4
1.3
15.5
14.5
10.2
113.1
114.2
1.1
13.0
13.7
9.2
132.2
124.5
7.7
14.6
10.1
6.9
114.8
108.4
6.4
10.8
8.7
8.2
82.6
81.6
1.0
10.9
11.4
4.9
75.1
80.9
5.8
9.5
13.8
7.4
81.5
81.2
0.3
10.1
10.7
6.3
79.2
76.9
2.3
8.5
6.8
8.4
28.6
27.6
0.9
6.5
6.5
2.9
28.6
29.3
0.7
5.3
5.3
5.5
33.4
29.9
3.5
5.6
6.6
2.9
30.2
26.9
3.3
5.9
5.6
3.9
14.2
15.7
1.5
4.1
4.3
5.1
3.5
1.5
14.5
16.6
2.1
4.4
5.0
6.4
6.1
1.4
12.9
12.4
0.5
1.7
2.4
2.5
1.9
0.9
12.3
10.7
1.6
1.6
2.8
1.1
2.6
1.0
TABLE 5.
Stress Group
Intake Category
Men
Control Group
Women
Men
Women
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
378.9
884.4
2.31
135.6
402.2
0.51
310.7
686.9
2.26
110.6
282.3
0.64
391.8
922.5
2.45
140.6
293.1
0.74
316.6
637.3
2.09
94.4
203.6
0.63
204.2
189.1
15.0
74.6
70.3
11.7
155.3
142.3
13.0
60.2
51.2
13.9
217.8
200.8
17.0
72.0
75.9
13.0
154.6
142.5
12.1
63.7
64.5
10.8
57.1
2.4
54.7
44.3
6.4
45.1
44.3
0.5
43.8
32.2
1.7
32.2
60.4
1.5
58.8
28.8
2.5
28.8
39.5
0.8
38.7
25.0
1.4
25.4
117.7
72.4
45.3
96.2
67.5
49.6
111.1
76.1
35.0
95.4
76.9
41.3
113.6
75.1
38.5
84.6
72.2
34.3
122.5
92.2
30.2
73.1
68.4
29.5
eaten. However, analyses involving measures of selection of different food sensory categories were not adjusted for energy requirements. Daily energy requirements were estimated on the basis of published
figures.1 This resulted in mean (SD) daily energy requirements of 3031.0 (236.9) kcal/d for the men and
2172.6 (185.1) kcal/d for the women (sex difference:
F(1,64) 284.6, p .001). Both men and women
consumed about one-third of their daily caloric requirements from the food presented, suggesting that
this eating episode could realistically be considered a
meal rather than merely a snack.
Stress Effects. There were no significant main effects of stress group on weight of food consumed, total
energy intake, or energy density of the meal (kcal/g),
nor were there any interactions between group and
gender (Table 5). Total intake was also analyzed in
terms of the main macronutrients (carbohydrate, fat,
and protein) and for starch and sugar separately, but
no significant effects were found (data not shown).
To examine intake in relation to choice from the
food sensory categories (sweet, salty, and bland), the
amount of food eaten from each category, including
high- and low-fat levels, was calculated (Table 5).
Four-factor repeated-measures ANOVA of intake (g)
1
Estimated daily energy requirements were calculated, using published equations, from basal metabolic rate, which is dependent on
age, sex, and weight, multiplied by physical activity level (PAL)
(36). Because no data were available for activity levels, moderate
levels were assumed for both occupational and nonoccupational
activity in both men (PAL 1.7) and women (PAL 1.6).
859
G. OLIVER et al.
Table 5). Both men and women ate significantly more
weight of low-fat than high-fat sweet foods (F(1,66)
20.44, p .001, no interaction).
Effects of Dietary Restraint on Intake
A median split of restraint scores was used to distinguish restrained and unrestrained eaters. Gender
was included as a covariate because there were significantly more female than male subjects in the highrestraint group (2 4.98, p .05).
There were no significant differences in intake (as
either weight or energy) between restrained and unrestrained eaters and no interaction between restraint
level and stress condition (F values 1, except the
gender covariate, which had values of F(1,63) 5.23,
p .05 for grams and F(1,63) 9.82, p .01 for kcal;
results were not qualitatively different without gender
as a covariate; see Table 6). Analyses grouping food
intake in terms of energy density of overall intake
(Table 6), sensory categories, and percentage of energy
from carbohydrate, protein, and fat (data not shown)
all failed to reveal any significant effects of restraint or
stress or any interactions involving these factors.
Effects of Emotional Eating on Intake
Restrained eaters scored significantly higher on the
emotional eating subscale of the DEBQ (t(66) 3.23, p
.01), and women were also more emotional eaters
than were men (t(66) 2.26, p .05) (Table 3). Thus,
although gender might mediate the interaction between restraint and emotional eating, effects of the
latter could give a clearer indication of individual differences in eating responses to stress. Again, gender
was included as a covariate in these analyses.
Subjects were divided, on the basis of a median
split, into high and low emotional eaters (ie, emotional eaters and nonemotional eaters). No significant effects of stress condition or any interaction with
emotional eating status were seen when total intake
was analyzed in terms of either weight or energy eaten
(group effect and group-by-emotional eating interacTABLE 6.
Intake Category
860
Low Restraint
Control Group
High Restraint
Low Restraint
High Restraint
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
312.7
730.3
2.33
123.9
357.2
0.59
365.0
806.2
2.24
122.6
339.8
0.60
364.0
799.9
2.24
142.6
327.5
0.68
326.7
692.9
2.22
87.9
209.1
0.72
Effect of Emotional Eating Status, Stress, and Sensory Category on Food Intakea
Stress Group
Low Emotional
Eating
Intake Category
Control Group
High Emotional
Eating
Low Emotional
Eating
High Emotional
Eating
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
327.1
687.4
2.11
119.0
330.2
0.60
357.7
898.8
2.55
134.9
341.3
0.46
307.1
735.9
2.44
75.9
224.4
0.55
369.0
752.9
2.10
134.4
308.7
0.74
172.6
160.0
12.6
69.8
64.0
11.8
180.0
164.1
15.9
72.4
64.6
14.8
151.6
136.1
15.4
46.1
42.6
13.2
195.6
182.5
13.1
82.0
83.9
11.0
45.5
1.4
44.1
41.1
5.3
41.2
56.1
1.1
55.0
31.5
2.3
31.8
42.9
0.7
42.2
27.0
1.4
27.5
50.3
1.3
49.0
29.0
2.1
28.9
109.0
80.0
28.9
86.3
71.4
33.8
121.6
65.7
55.9
109.4
75.2
55.2
112.6
73.9
38.7
68.0
68.7
33.4
123.0
93.0
30.0
82.8
70.4
30.1
861
G. OLIVER et al.
(SD) desire to eat for high vs. low emotional eaters:
stressed group, 4.58 (0.90) vs. 3.62 (0.91), respectively;
control group, 3.73 (0.93) vs. 3.71 (0.90), respectively).
DISCUSSION
Fig. 1.
862
el: Markus et al. (45) found that neurotic (stressprone) subjects were protected from depressed mood
and raised cortisol induced by a psychological stressor
task after eating a carbohydrate-rich/protein-poor
breakfast and lunch but not after a carbohydrate-poor/
protein-rich diet. In stable subjects, mood was depressed and cortisol increased equally after either diet.
This result was interpreted as improved coping after a
diet-induced increase in the supply of precursor
amino acids to serotonin synthesis. That is, the carbohydrate-rich/protein-poor diet specifically allows
greater uptake of the precursor amino acid tryptophan
into the brain. The implication is that neurotic or
stress-prone individuals may be particularly sensitive
to dietary effects on brain pathways influencing mood
and stress coping. Furthermore, to learn to self-medicate through eating in this manner would most likely
require ingestion of unusually low-protein foods in
isolation (46), as might be achieved by snacking on
sweet and fatty foods when hungry. Also, within this
theoretical framework, dietary restraint, found to be
positively correlated with emotional eating or disinhibition here and elsewhere (16, 30, 41), may predispose
an individual to learning such a dietary-induced relief
of dysphoria; that is, dieting has been shown to lower
plasma tryptophan levels in women and to sensitize
serotoninergic function (47).
An alternative neurohormonal mechanism for
stress-induced preferential selection of sweet fatty
foods is suggested by evidence that such highly palatable foods can themselves relieve stress through release of endogenous opioids (44, 48).
The effects of stress on hedonic reactions to, and
perception of, taste also need consideration. For instance, Dess and Edelheit (27) found that stress
changed peoples perception of saccharins bitterness
and sweetness, as it does in rats (6), but the direction of
change depended on aspects of temperament such as
trait arousability, pleasure (net affective valence), and
dominance. Despite no suggestion of gender differences (27), it could be fruitful to determine the relationship of these traits to emotional eating tendencies.
As with any laboratory study carried out in this
area, the impact of the stressor on the participants is
likely to be less severe than is the case for real events
occurring in a nonexperimental setting without ethical
constraints. Caution is required in generalizing from
these results to less controlled situations in daily life.
Even so, anticipation of public speaking is known to be
a fearful stimulus to students (49); actual performance
might have led to subjects eating while in a relieved
rather than stressed state. Here, certainly, subjects in
the stress group rated their experience as significantly
more stressful than did subjects in the control group,
863
G. OLIVER et al.
but this was in response to the question asked during
the debriefing session, and so answers may have been
influenced by demand effects. Nevertheless, on the
premise that stress-induced changes in food choice
might actually help to alleviate stress, group differences in the perceived stress level reported after the
meal may have been less than would be the case without a meal. It should be noted that the (presumably
adaptational) decrease from baseline in physiological
arousal among control subjects is a well-recognized
phenomenon in psychophysiological research (50):
Far from vitiating the use of stress and control
group labels, it illustrates the justification for such a
control group. The combination of this difference between groups in changes in physiological measures
and the evidence of greater physiological and psychological arousal in the stressed group justifies the
stressed vs. control group comparisons.
Despite the limitations described, this study is
unique in its assessment of the effect of stress on food
choice in the laboratory by presenting, in the form of
an explicit meal, a range of foods varying in nutritional
composition, taste and textural qualities, and dietary
roles (ie, snack foods and meal foods). Susceptible
individuals were found to select less healthy foods
under stress, supporting the proposition that stress
may damage health in part through unhealthy food
choice. However, the variety of foods was limited, and
so caution is needed in interpreting which properties
of the foods are critical to the effect. The findings
deserve replication and extension, for instance, under
different stress conditions and eating contexts, together with further characterization of vulnerable
traits (51).
REFERENCES
1. Adler N, Matthews K. Health psychology: why do some people
get sick and some stay well? Annu Rev Psychol 1994;45:229 59.
2. Steptoe A. The links between stress and illness. J Psychosom Res
1991;35:633 44.
3. Steptoe A, Lipsey Z, Wardle J. Stress, hassles and variations in
alcohol consumption, food choice and physical exercise: a diary
study. Br J Health Psychol 1998;3:51 63.
4. Johnson EO, Kamilaris TC, Chrousos GP, Gold PW. Mechanisms
of stress: a dynamic overview of hormonal and behavioral homeostasis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1992;16:11530.
5. York DA. Central regulation of appetite and autonomic activity
by CRH, glucocorticoids and stress. Prog Neuroendocrinimmunol 1992;5:153 65.
6. Dess NK, Choe S, Minor TR. The interaction of diet and stress in
rats: high-energy food and sucrose treatment. J Exp Psychol
Anim Behav Process 1998;24:60 71.
7. Robbins TW, Fray PJ. Stress-induced eating: fact, fiction or misunderstanding? Appetite 1980;1:10333.
864
865