Discounting of Hyper-Palatable Food and Money: Associations with Food Addiction Symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Delay discounting (DD), the tendency to prefer small, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards, is associated with health-risk behaviors. The study examined associations between DD for money and hyper-palatable foods (HPF) with food addiction (FA) symptoms among a general population sample. METHODS: Participants (N = 296) completed an adjusting DD task that consisted of a single-commodity condition with HPF as the reward (HPF now vs. HPF later) and cross-commodity conditions comparing money and HPF (money now vs. HPF later; HPF now vs. money later). The Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 was used to assess FA symptoms. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression models tested whether discounting of HPF and money was associated with FA symptoms. RESULTS: Findings indicated there were no significant associations between DD and FA symptoms in the single-commodity HPF condition (logit: OR = 1.02, p-value = 0.650; count: IRR = 1.04, p-value = 0.515). There were no significant associations among cross-commodity conditions comparing money now vs. HPF later (logit: OR = 0.96, p-value = 0.330; count: IRR = 1.02, p-value = 0.729) or conditions comparing HPF now vs. money later (logit: OR = 1.02, p-value = 0.682; count: IRR = 0.92, p-value = 0.128) and FA symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Discounting HPF may not be a key behavioral feature among individuals who endorse FA symptoms.

Motives and food craving: Associations with frequency of hyper-palatable food intake among college students.

BACKGROUND: College food environments provide wide access to hyper-palatable foods (HPF). Palatable eating motives and craving are individual factors that may impact HPF intake. Nevertheless, no study to date has examined the relationship between these factors and frequency of HPF intake in a dormitory all-you-can-eat-style cafeteria meal, a typical college food setting. METHODS: College students (N = 218) self-reported frequency of HPF intake at a college cafeteria meal and their frequency of HPF intake in the overall diet. Quasipoisson and logistic regression models tested whether palatable eating motives (assessed via the Palatable Eating Motives Scale) and craving (assessed via the Food Craving Inventory) were associated with the rate of HPF intake during the cafeteria meal and excess frequency of HPF intake in the overall diet. RESULTS: Craving was associated with a 19% higher rate of HPF intake during the cafeteria meal (RR = 1.19; p = .015) and a >2-fold higher likelihood of excess frequency of HPF intake the overall diet (OR = 2.69; p < .001). Coping motive was associated with an 87% higher likelihood of excess frequency of HPF intake in the overall diet (OR = 1.87; p = .002), but not in the cafeteria meal. Reward enhancement, social and conformity motives were not significantly associated with the frequency of HPF intake in either setting. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the role of craving and coping motive in the frequency of HPF intake among college students. Prevention efforts may consider targeting craving and eating to cope to potentially address frequency of HPF intake among college students.

Delay discounting and substance use treatment outcomes: A systematic review focused on treatment outcomes and discounting methodology.

INTRODUCTION: Delay discounting-the tendency to choose small, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards-is robustly associated with substance use. Delay discounting may present challenges in treatment for substance use disorders, as individuals with elevated discounting may struggle to wait for the long-term rewards that come from abstinence, which may yield poorer treatment outcomes. However, evidence on the role of discounting in treatment outcomes has been inconsistent. The study conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the prospective effects of delay discounting measured pre-treatment on substance use treatment outcomes, with a focus on characterizing findings across: 1) type of treatment outcome and 2) methodology used to assess and characterize discounting. METHOD: A systematic literature search identified N = 17 studies that examined the association between delay discounting at treatment entry (pre-treatment) and substance use treatment outcomes. Findings were reported across the following substance use treatment outcomes: abstinence, relapse, use frequency and related problems, and treatment adherence. Findings regarding discounting methodology were reported by type of discounting measure (adjusting choice task, fixed choice task, or experiential task) and parameter used to characterize discounting (k, log transformed k (lnk), and area under the curve). RESULTS: Delay discounting at treatment entry was not consistently associated with substance use treatment outcomes when examined across all studies overall (47 %) or by treatment outcome (0-40 % for most outcomes). The majority of studies (64 %) that used an adjusting choice, computer-based task reported a significant association between discounting and treatment outcomes, whereas few studies that used a fixed choice or experiential task reported significant associations with treatment outcomes (0-25 %). Most studies (71 %) that used the lnk parameter to characterize discounting reported significant associations between discounting and a range of treatment outcomes. In contrast, few studies that used k or AUC (25-33 %) reported significant associations between discounting and treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: When examined overall and by treatment outcome, evidence did not consistently indicate that delay discounting was prospectively associated with substance use treatment outcomes. However, delay discounting at treatment entry was more commonly associated with a variety of poorer treatment outcomes when researchers used more fine-grained methods to characterize discounting.