Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 105 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Eating Motives and the Controversy over Dieting: Eating Less Than Needed versus Less Than Wanted

Lowe, Michael R., Levine, Allen S.·2005·Obesity Research
DOI 10.1038/oby.2005.90
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Anti‐dieting sentiment has grown in recent years. Critics of restrained eating suggest that it evokes counter‐regulatory responses that render it ineffective or even iatrogenic. However, restrained eaters are not in negative energy balance and overweight individuals show reduced eating problems when losing weight by dieting. A distinction is often drawn between physiological and psychological hunger, and neuroscience research has shown that there is a neurophysiological reality underlying this distinction. The brain has a homeostatic system (activated by energy deficits) and a hedonic system (activated by the presence of palatable food). The omnipresence of highly palatable food in the environment may chronically activate the hedonic appetite system, producing a need to actively restrain eating not just to lose weight but to avoid gaining it. Just as restricting energy intake below homeostatic needs produces physiological deprivation, restricting intake of palatable foods may produce “perceived deprivation” despite a state of energy balance. In summary, the motivation to eat more than one needs appears to be every bit as real, and perhaps every bit as powerful, as the motivation to eat when energy deprived.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/oby.2005.90

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
Lowe, M. R., & Levine, A. S.
Venue
Obesity Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-05
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
797-806
ISSN
  • 1071-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-8528
DOI
10.1038/oby.2005.90
OpenAlex
W2170454283
Cited by
293
References
105
FWCI
22.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.