IntroductionOne in three adolescents frequently consume unhealthy snacks, which is associated with negative developmental outcomes. To date, it remains unclear how intrapersonal factors account for food choices in adolescents. Guided by the dual-pathway model, the current study aimed to: (1) examine the joint contribution of inhibitory control and attentional bias in predicting unhealthy food choices in adolescents, and (2) determine whether this mechanism is more pronounced in adolescents who experience loss of control over eating (LOC).Materials and MethodsA community sample of (...) 80 adolescents (65% female; 10–17 years old,Mage= 13.28,SD= 1.94) was recruited. Based on a self-report questionnaire, 28.7% of this sample reported at least one episode of LOC over the past month. Food choice was assessed using a computerized food choice task. Both inhibitory control and attentional bias were measured with behavioral tasks (go/no-go and dot probe task, respectively). Binary logistic regressions were conducted to address the research questions.ResultsInhibitory control and attentional bias did not significantly interact to predict unhealthy food choices. However, there was a significant three-way interaction between inhibitory control, attentional bias and LOC. For adolescents without LOC, the combination of poor inhibitory control and low attentional bias was significantly associated with unhealthy food choice. Surprisingly, for adolescents with LOC, there was no significant association between unhealthy food choice and inhibitory control or attentional bias.DiscussionDual-pathway processes do not seem to add to the explanation of food choice behavior for adolescents with LOC. For adolescents who do not experience LOC, those with poor inhibitory control combined with low attentional bias might be at particular risk for making unhealthy food choices. (shrink)

While previous studies have suggested that there exists a relationship between obesity and executive function (EF), the mechanisms and causal relationship between them remain unclear. There are important clinical implications of determining whether EF can predict and treat obesity. We conducted a multilevel meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies. Specifically, we investigate (a) whether EF interventions have an effect on weight loss, (b) whether baseline EF can be a predictor of future weight loss through obesity intervention, and (...) (c) whether early-life EF can predict future weight loss. Eight RCTs and 17 longitudinal studies with a total of 11,393 participants were identified. We found that (a) EF interventions may not have an effect on weight loss, (b) baseline inhibition (β = 0.259,p= 0.03) and delay discounting (β = −0.17,p= 0.04) significantly predict future weight loss through obesity intervention, (c) age (F= 13.666,p= 0.005) moderates the relationship between working memory and weight loss through intervention, but not weight status, type of intervention, and percentage of female, and (d) early life inhibition (β = 0.185,p= 0.07) is a marginally significant predictor of future weight loss. Our results seem to support the assumption that the relationship between EF and obesity is not direct, and a higher-order factor, such as genes, may link obesity and EF. Building on the preliminary findings, further studies focusing on EF and obesity are needed in the future. (shrink)