This intervention shows improved eating competence and reduced eating disturbances in repeat dieters, indicating potential benefits for similar programs.
Background/Objectives: The 10-session How to Eat intervention was developed to institute Eating Competence (EatC) and repair distorted eating attitudes and behaviors growing out of chronically restrained eating and/or repeated weight reduction dieting. How to Eat was conducted over a 12-year period as an employee wellness option at two locations in the midwestern United States. Methods: Participants in How to Eat were adult employees of their respective hospital or university who voluntarily enrolled after screening and assessment by each site facilitator. Pre- and post-measures were the 16-item EatC measure, the 26-item Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26), and body weight. Results: In the hospital setting, a total of 43 adults participated, with a mean (±SD) age of 47.5 ± 10.7 years, primarily female (95.3%) and white (90.7%). How to Eat was associated with a significant increase in EatC total scores (22.8 ± 6.5 to 34.3 ± 4.9) and a decrease in EAT-26 scores (10.7 ± 8.1 to 3.7 ± 2.9), both p < 0.001. In the university setting, a total of 52 adults participated, 89.4% female, with a mean (±SD) age of 39.3 ± 11.4 years. University participants were significantly younger, p < 0.001. How to Eat was also associated with a significant increase in EatC total scores (24.1 ± 7.0 to 36.6 ± 6.9) and EAT-26 scores (13.9 ± 8.8 to 3.2 ± 4.2), both p < 0.001. At both sites, changes in total EatC, Contextual skills, and EAT-26 scores had strong effect sizes. Mean body weight was ±5% pre/post-intervention at either site. Conclusions: How to Eat is associated with clinically significant improvements in measures of EatC and a decrease in eating disturbances among repeat dieters without significantly impacting body weight. Positive results from employee wellness settings support future experimental studies with more diverse samples and additional outcome measures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harris et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: