Special Issue "Mindful Eating Practices: Providing Further Evidence and Considering any Potential Publication Bias in the Field"

A special issue of Nutrients (ISSN 2072-6643). This special issue belongs to the section "Nutrition and Public Health".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 25 November 2022 | Viewed by 1933

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Michael Mantzios
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Birmingham City University, Cardigan Street, Birmingham B4 7DB, UK
Interests: mindful eating; mindfulness; compassion; self-compassion; kindness; self-kindness; eating behaviours; weight loss; obesity; cystic fibrosis; colouring books; mental health
Dr. Helen Egan
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
Interests: mindfulness; eating behaviours; obesity; mental Health and wellbeing of health care professionals and other caring professions

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

In recent years, we have observed a rise in the number of practitioners and researchers attempting to utilise and examine how mindful eating interventions and practices enable health and wellbeing amongst different clinical and non-clinical populations. Mindful eating practices utilise a variety of mindfulness elements, some centralising on the attentive aspects, some being more holistic and incorporating more non-judgmental and acceptance aspects of traditional theories, and some broadening interventions to embed mindfulness-based stress reduction, acceptance and commitment therapy, or self-compassion theories and practices into the corresponding mindful eating programme. These interventions and practices that constitute a wide area of research and practice in contemporary medicine and behavioural and nutritional care provide a platform that requires more research.

The findings when observing programmes, interventions or specific practices have been overwhelmingly positive across different fields of study. Considering the variability of practices, however, any potential significant differences, failed attempts, difficulties, and theoretical and practical understandings remain unknown and could be exceedingly positive for the field.

The majority of journals consistently prefer scientifically innovative enquiries and results that are ground-breaking above replications and null findings, creating a publication bias that is obscuring potential implications and possible inaccuracies of the impact of mindful eating approaches. Desirable, undesirable, and inconclusive results should be published (World Health Organization, 2013) to advance scientific knowledge and support the development of accurate and effective practices.

The question that this Special Issue is attempting to address is whether mindful eating has more to give as an intervention, above and beyond other practices, and an identification as to whether the observed publication bias that exists across academia is true for mindful eating. The expectation is to accelerate scientific progress and create a platform where researchers and practitioners will have clarity of when some mindful eating approaches may not produce comparable outcomes, and for researchers to identify attempts that led to null findings.   

The Special Issue will consider the following types of contributions:

  • Research articles with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods designs displaying significant as well as contradicting and/or null findings;
  • Empirical studies where manipulations failed, or interventions that displayed unexpected outcomes;
  • Unsuccessful clinical case studies and reports;
  • Comparisons between well-known practices and interventions;
  • General commentary, opinion, and theoretical articles that adopt a more critical approach;
  • Specific article commentary published in this Special Issue, and responses to article commentaries.

Dr. Michael Mantzios
Dr. Helen Egan
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Nutrients is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • mindful eating
  • mindful eating behaviour
  • mindful attentive eating
  • attentive eating
  • focussed eating
  • publication bias
  • null findings

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Article
Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Intuitive (IES-2) and Mindful (MES) Eating Scales—The Relationship of the Concepts with Healthy and Unhealthy Food Intake (a Cross-Sectional Study)
Nutrients 2022, 14(5), 1109; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14051109 - 06 Mar 2022
Viewed by 567
Abstract
Intuitive (IE) and mindful (ME) eating share internally focused eating, yet previous studies have shown that these concepts are not strongly correlated, which suggests that they might be differently related to food intake. The study aimed to adapt the original Intuitive (IES-2) and [...] Read more.
Intuitive (IE) and mindful (ME) eating share internally focused eating, yet previous studies have shown that these concepts are not strongly correlated, which suggests that they might be differently related to food intake. The study aimed to adapt the original Intuitive (IES-2) and Mindful (MES) Eating Scales to the Polish language, to test their psychometric parameters and, further, to examine associations of IE and ME with an intake of selected food groups, i.e., healthy foods (fresh and processed vegetables, fresh fruit) and unhealthy foods (sweets, salty snacks). A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2020 in a group of 1000 Polish adults (500 women and 500 men) aged 18–65 (mean age = 41.3 ± 13.6 years). The factor structure was assessed with exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis as well as structural equation modeling (SEM). Measurement invariance across gender was assessed with multiple-group analysis. Internal consistency and discriminant validity of the two scales was tested. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between IES-2 and MES subscales with food intake. A 4-factor, 16-item structure was confirmed for IES-2, while EFA and CFA revealed a 3-factor, 17-item structure of MES. Both scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency and discriminant validity. Full metric and partial scalar invariance were found for IES-2, while MES proved partial invariances. “Awareness” (MES) and “Body–Food Choice Congruence” (IES-2) positively correlated with intake of healthy foods and negatively with the intake of unhealthy ones. “Eating For Physical Rather Than Emotional Reasons” (IES-2) and “Act with awareness” (MES) favored lower intake of unhealthy foods, whereas “Unconditional Permission to Eat” and “Reliance on Hunger and Satiety Cues” (IES-2) showed an inverse relationship. A greater score in “Acceptance” (MES) was conducive to lower intake of all foods except sweets. The results confirmed that adapted versions of the IES-2 and MES are valid and reliable measures to assess IE and ME among Polish adults. Different IE and ME domains may similarly explain intake of healthy and unhealthy foods, yet within a single eating style, individual domains might have the opposite effect. Future studies should confirm our findings with the inclusion of mediating factors, such as other eating styles, childhood experiences, dieting, etc. Full article
Article
A Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Effects of Mindful Eating and Eating without Distractions on Food Intake over a Three-Day Period
Nutrients 2022, 14(5), 1043; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14051043 - 28 Feb 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 836
Abstract
This study compared the effects of mindful eating and eating without distractions on energy intake and diet over a 3-day period among healthy-weight females. Mindful eating was defined as attending to the sensory properties of one’s food as one eats. Participants (n [...] Read more.
This study compared the effects of mindful eating and eating without distractions on energy intake and diet over a 3-day period among healthy-weight females. Mindful eating was defined as attending to the sensory properties of one’s food as one eats. Participants (n = 99) were asked to either focus on the sensory properties of their food (MIND), eat without distractions (CON-D) or they were not provided with any instructions (CON-I). All participants completed an online food recall measure at the end of each day. Those in the MIND and CON-D groups also rated strategy adherence at the end of each day. Results showed no significant effects of condition on energy intake (ηp2 = 0.00), saturated fat, added sugar and fiber (ηp2 = 0.03), or fruit and vegetables (ηp2 = 0.04). There was also no significant relationship between energy intake and strategy adherence in the MIND group (r = −0.02). For those in the CON-D group, there was a trend toward a negative relationship between energy intake and strategy adherence (r = −0.31, p = 0.085). Among this population, there was no evidence that asking people to attend to the sensory properties of their food improved their diet. Further research is needed to identify mechanisms underpinning significant effects observed in laboratory studies, to help understand when this strategy is, and is not, likely to be helpful. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop