Availability and consumption of hyper-palatable foods in an all-you-can-eat cafeteria among college freshmen.

INTRODUCTION: College campuses provide an expansive food environment, which may contribute to elevated risk of excess energy intake and weight gain among college students. All-you-can-eat style cafeterias often expose students to hyper-palatable foods (HPF), which may promote overeating. This study aimed to examine the availability of HPF in an all-you-can-eat college cafeteria, and to examine HPF intake during meals among undergraduates. METHOD: Publicly available cafeteria menu data from a Midwestern university were analyzed and included 25 meals. To determine the availability of HPF within the cafeteria meals, the standardized definition of HPF by Fazzino et al. (2019) was used, which specifies combinations of palatability-inducing nutrients at quantitative thresholds that may induce hyper-palatability. Participants (N = 225) who ate in the cafeteria in the past 24 h were presented with a list of all menu items for their corresponding cafeteria meal, and self-reported all items consumed. RESULTS: On average, 40 % (SD = 1.4) of total food items available per meal were HPF, with 68 % (SD = 3.6) of items with elevated fat and sodium. Regarding intake of HPF among students, approximately 64 % (SD = 31.4) of foods consumed were HPF, and 51 % (SD = 32.3) of items consumed had elevated fat and sodium. CONCLUSION: Findings indicated that college students may be regularly exposed to HPF in all-you-can-eat college cafeteria environments, and that students may consume cafeteria meals that are primarily comprised of HPF.

Ultraprocessed, hyper-palatable, and high energy density foods: Prevalence and distinction across 30 years in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Ultraprocessed foods (UPF), hyper-palatable foods (HPF), and high energy density (HED) foods may contribute to obesity risk. All have distinct definitions; however, it is unknown the degree to which they may identify overlapping or distinct foods. This study examined the availability of UPF, HPF, and HED foods in the US food system from 1988 to 2018 and the degree of distinction across definitions. METHODS: Four data sets representing the US food system (1988, 2001, 2006, 2018) from the US Department of Agriculture were analyzed. UPF were identified based on the extent of industrialized processing. HPF were identified using the standardized definition that specifies palatability-inducing nutrient combinations. HED was characterized as >2.0 kcal/g. RESULTS: Across years, 58% to 65% of foods were classified as UPF, 55% to 69% as HPF, and 37% to 47% as HED. Prevalence of UPF, HPF, and HED foods was higher in 2018 versus 1988 (p values < 0.001); HPF evidenced the largest increase (14%) and UPF evidenced the smallest (4%) over time. There was moderate to high overlap in foods (40%-70%) across definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Together, UPF, HPF, and HED foods comprise most foods in the US food supply. Changes in availability varied across definitions, with substantial increases in HPF and HED and relative stability of UPF.

Engagement in types of activities and frequency of alcohol use in a national sample of United States adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescents with fewer sources of environmental reinforcement may be at risk for alcohol use. Behavioral economic theories posit that engagement in some activities may facilitate alcohol use, whereas other activities may be incompatible with use and reduce likelihood of alcohol use. It is unclear which types of activities may facilitate or may be incompatible with alcohol use in adolescence. Using a national sample of adolescents, the current study examined differences in engagement with types of activities that may be incompatible with alcohol use, compared among adolescents who endorsed alcohol use, and adolescents who did not. METHOD: Data from the 2019 Monitoring the Future (MTF) study (N = 4626) were analyzed. Potentially incompatible and facilitating activities, and alcohol-involved activities were identified from pre-existing survey measures. Confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance, and structural equation modeling were used to examine patterns in activity engagement among those who endorsed alcohol use and those who did not. RESULTS: Participants who did not endorse alcohol use reported higher engagement in activities that may be incompatible with alcohol use, including enjoyment from school and going to the mall (p < .001). Participants who endorsed alcohol use reported higher engagement in activities that may facilitate alcohol use (p < .001), such as spending time with friends and attending parties. Facilitating activities (ß = 0.15, p < .001) and alcohol-involved activities (ß = 0.70, p < .001) were positively associated with alcohol use frequency. Observed effect sizes were small in magnitude for all findings. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the premise of behavioral economic theory, suggesting some activities may serve as protective factors against alcohol use frequency while other activities may facilitate alcohol use among adolescents. National surveys may consider adding specific measure of activity engagement to identify activities that may be incompatible with alcohol use among adolescents.

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.

Reward sensitivity, eating behavior, and obesity-related outcomes: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research has identified reward sensitivity as an important factor that may contribute to the engagement in eating behavior (e.g., binge eating, emotional eating, etc.) and increase obesity risk. In the current study, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the relationships between reward sensitivity, eating behavior, and obesity-related outcomes. The study focused on two commonly used measures of reward sensitivity in the literature: the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) and the Behavioral Inhibition Scale/Behavioral Activation Scale (BIS/BAS Scale). METHOD: We conducted a systematic search to identify studies that analyzed reward sensitivity as a predictor of eating behavior or obesity-related outcomes, and measured reward sensitivity using the SPSRQ or BIS/BAS Scale. The search yielded N=19 total publications included in the review. RESULTS: Findings indicated that reward sensitivity, primarily measured by summary scores on the SPSRQ or BIS/BAS Scale, were positively associated with a variety of eating behaviors and obesity-related outcomes with small to moderate effect sizes. Findings were most consistent across studies that examined the association between reward sensitivity and eating behavior outcomes (e.g., binge eating, emotional eating) (r values= .08 to .41; p values < .001 to p < .05) and food consumption outcomes (e.g., palatable food intake) (r values = .21 to .40; p < .001 to p values < .05). Findings were less consistent for food craving and BMI outcomes, and revealed these relationships may depend on individual-level factors and/or environment-related factors, (e.g., food cues). A quality evaluation using the Critical Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) indicated that most studies were rated as moderate to strong quality (84%). CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that elevated reward sensitivity may be a risk factor for engagement in eating behaviors that may increase obesity risk.