Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Pediatrics

Sensitization of the reinforcing value of food: a novel risk factor for overweight in adolescents

International Journal of Obesity volume 44, pages 1918–1927 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background and objectives

The relative reinforcing value (RRV) of food is associated with increased energy intake and obesity and increases in RRV of food after repeated intake (sensitization) are related cross-sectionally and prospectively to higher BMI in adults. We examined the factors, such as delay discounting (DD), associated with sensitization of RRV to high energy density (HED) and low energy density (LED) food and how sensitization relates to zBMI in adolescents. We hypothesized that sensitization to HED food would be positively associated with zBMI, that sensitization to LED food would be negatively associated with zBMI, that DD would be associated with HED sensitization, and that LED sensitization and DD would moderate the relationships between HED sensitization and zBMI.

Subjects and methods

A population-based sample of 207 adolescents without obesity, aged 12–14 years was studied from June 2016–March 2019. The RRV of LED and HED foods were measured before and after two weeks of daily consumption along with zBMI and other potential factors related to eating and weight, including dietary restraint, hunger, food liking, and delay discounting (DD). Hierarchical regression models were used to determine the associations between these factors and sensitization and zBMI. We also examined LED sensitization and DD as potential moderators of the relationship between sensitization and zBMI.

Results

As hypothesized, dietary restraint and sensitization to HED food were associated with greater zBMI. Contrary to our original hypotheses, DD was not associated with sensitization, there was no relationship between sensitization to LED food and zBMI and neither LED sensitization or DD moderated the relationship between HED sensitization and zBMI.

Conclusions

Sensitization to repeated intake of HED food was associated with higher zBMI in adolescents without obesity. Sensitization may be a novel behavioral phenotype that may relate to overweight in youth.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Consort diagram showing the number of participants screened, consented, retained for five baseline visits, and included in the analysis.
Fig. 2: Outline of the flow of participant visits.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Epstein LH, Lin H, Carr KA, Fletcher KD. Food reinforcement and obesity. Psychological moderators. Appetite. 2012;58:157–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein LH, Yokum S, Feda DM, Stice E. Food reinforcement and parental obesity predict future weight gain in non-obese adolescents. Appetite. 2014;82:138–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Temple JL. Factors that influence the reinforcing value of foods and beverages. Physiol Behav. 2014;136:97–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein LH, Leddy JJ, Temple JL, Faith MS. Food reinforcement and eating: a multilevel analysis. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:884–906.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Temple JL, Legierski CM, Giacomelli AM, Salvy SJ, Epstein LH. Overweight children find food more reinforcing and consume more energy than do nonoverweight children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87:1121–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Clark EN, Dewey AM, Temple JL. Effects of daily snack food intake on food reinforcement depend on body mass index and energy density. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91:300–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Temple JL. Behavioral sensitization of the reinforcing value of food: What food and drugs have in common. Prev Med. 2016;92:90–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Temple JL, Bulkley AM, Badawy RL, Krause N, McCann S, Epstein LH. Differential effects of daily snack food intake on the reinforcing value of food in obese and nonobese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90:304–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Temple JL, Chappel A, Shalik J, Volcy S, Epstein LH. Daily consumption of individual snack foods decreases their reinforcing value. Eating Behav. 2008;9:267–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berridge KC, Robinson TE. Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Am Psychol. 2016;71:670–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1993;18:247–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive-sensitization view. Addiction. 2000;95(Suppl 2):S91–117.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Robinson TE, Berridge KC. Review. The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363:3137–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Temple JL, Epstein LH. Sensitization of food reinforcement is related to weight status and baseline food reinforcement. Int J Obes. 2012;36:1102–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Appelhans BM, Waring ME, Schneider KL, Pagoto SL, DeBiasse MA, Whited MC, et al. Delay discounting and intake of ready-to-eat and away-from-home foods in overweight and obese women. Appetite. 2012;59:576–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Appelhans BM, Woolf K, Pagoto SL, Schneider KL, Whited MC, Liebman R. Inhibiting food reward: delay discounting, food reward sensitivity, and palatable food intake in overweight and obese women. Obesity. 2011;19:2175–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fields SA, Sabet M, Peal A, Reynolds B. Relationship between weight status and delay discounting in a sample of adolescent cigarette smokers. Behav Pharmacol. 2011;22:266–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rasmussen EB, Lawyer SR, Reilly W. Percent body fat is related to delay and probability discounting for food in humans. Behav Process. 2010;83:23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Weller RE, Cook EW 3rd, Avsar KB, Cox JE. Obese women show greater delay discounting than healthy-weight women. Appetite. 2008;51:563–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Best JR, Theim KR, Gredysa DM, Stein RI, Welch RR, Saelens BE, et al. Behavioral economic predictors of overweight children’s weight loss. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012;80:1086–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Stojek MMK, MacKillop J. Relative reinforcing value of food and delayed reward discounting in obesity and disordered eating: a systematic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;55:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carr KA, Daniel TO, Lin H, Epstein LH. Reinforcement pathology and obesity. Current Drug Abuse Rev. 2011;4:190–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Konrad K, Firk C, Uhlhaas PJ. Brain development during adolescence: neuroscientific insights into this developmental period. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110:425–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Moreno-Lopez L, Soriano-Mas C, Delgado-Rico E, Rio-Valle JS, Verdejo-Garcia A. Brain structural correlates of reward sensitivity and impulsivity in adolescents with normal and excess weight. PLoS One. 2012;7:e49185.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Vara AS, Pang EW, Vidal J, Anagnostou E, Taylor MJ. Neural mechanisms of inhibitory control continue to mature in adolescence. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2014;10C:129–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Koebnick C, Coleman KJ, Black MH, Smith N, Der-Sarkissian JK, Jacobsen SJ, et al. Cohort profile: the KPSC Children’s Health Study, a population-based study of 920 000 children and adolescents in southern California. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:627–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shields M, Tremblay MS. Canadian childhood obesity estimates based on WHO, IOTF and CDC cut-points. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2010;5:265–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hill AJ, Pallin V. Dieting awareness and low self-worth: related issues in 8-year-old girls. Int J Eat Disord. 1998;24:405–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van Strien T, Herman CP, Verheijden MW. Dietary restraint and body mass change. A 3-year follow up study in a representative Dutch sample. Appetite. 2014;76:44–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Epstein LH, Kilanowski CK, Consalvi AR, Paluch RA. Reinforcing value of physical activity as a determinant of child activity level. Health Psychol. 1999;18:599–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Epstein LH, Temple JL, Neaderhiser BJ, Salis RJ, Erbe RW, Leddy JJ. Food reinforcement, the dopamine D2 receptor genotype, and energy intake in obese and nonobese humans. Behav Neurosci. 2007;121:877–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Temple JL, Bulkley AM, Briatico L, Dewey AM. Sex differences in reinforcing value of caffeinated beverages in adolescents. Behav Pharmacol. 2009;20:731–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rollins BY, Dearing KK, Epstein LH. Delay discounting moderates the effect of food reinforcement on energy intake among non-obese women. Appetite. 2010;55:420–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Johnson MW, Bickel WK. An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;16:264–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Anokhin AP, Golosheykin S, Mulligan RC. Long-term test-retest reliability of delayed reward discounting in adolescents. Behav Process. 2015;111:55–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Isen JD, Sparks JC, Iacono WG. Predictive validity of delay discounting behavior in adolescence: a longitudinal twin study. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014;22:434–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Himes JH, Dietz WH. Guidelines for overweight in adolescent preventive services: recommendations from an expert committee. The Expert Committee on Clinical Guidelines for Overweight in Adolescent Preventive Services. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:307–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stubbs RJ, Hughes DA, Johnstone AM, Rowley E, Reid C, Elia M, et al. The use of visual analogue scales to assess motivation to eat in human subjects: a review of their reliability and validity with an evaluation of new hand-held computerized systems for temporal tracking of appetite ratings. Br J Nutr. 2000;84:405–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hayes AF, Cai L. Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: an introduction and software implementation. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:709–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Epstein LH, Carr KA, Lin H, Fletcher KD. Food reinforcement, energy intake, and macronutrient choice. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94:12–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Steele CC, Pirkle JRA, Davis IR, Kirkpatrick K. Dietary effects on the determinants of food choice: Impulsive choice, discrimination, incentive motivation, preference, and liking in male rats. Appetite. 2019;136:160–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Westwater ML, Fletcher PC, Ziauddeen H. Sugar addiction: the state of the science. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55(Suppl 2):55–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Carr KA, Epstein LH. Influence of sedentary, social, and physical alternatives on food reinforcement. Health Psychol. 2018;37:125–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by NIH R01 DK106265 (JLT). We thank Lori Hazinger, Aaron Anderson, Meredith Edelman, and Alessia Galante for their years of help in collecting these data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA

    Jennifer L. Temple, Amanda M. Ziegler & Tegan Mansouri

  2. Community Health and Health Behavior, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA

    Jennifer L. Temple, Amanda M. Ziegler & Amanda K. Crandall

  3. School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA

    Jennifer L. Temple, Amanda M. Ziegler, Amanda K. Crandall & Tegan Mansouri

  4. Department of Pediatrics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA

    Leonard H. Epstein

  5. The Jacobs School of Medicine, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA

    Leonard H. Epstein

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Temple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda M. Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda K. Crandall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tegan Mansouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leonard H. Epstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Temple.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Temple, J.L., Ziegler, A.M., Crandall, A.K. et al. Sensitization of the reinforcing value of food: a novel risk factor for overweight in adolescents. Int J Obes 44, 1918–1927 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-020-0641-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-020-0641-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links