Episode Details

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter. If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!

Content note: this piece will discuss research around binge eating, including behaviors and frequency.

In part 1, we looked at the authors and methodology of a 2024 study called “Evaluating dietary restriction as a maintaining factor in binge-eating disorder” by Bartholomay et al., whose authors claim that the findings “challenge the assumption that dietary restriction maintains BE [binge eating] among all individuals with BED [Binge Eating Disorder]. Rather, results suggest that dietary restriction may be largely unrelated to BE maintenance in this population, and that reducing dietary restriction generally does not have the intended effect on BE frequency.”

Too Long Didn’t Read Version:When analyzing research, it’s important to check to see if the research that the authors cite to support their claims actually does support their claims. In this case, these authors are drawing large, broad-based conclusions that would support a weight-centric/weight-loss paradigm based on small, short-term, and decades old studies that offer only weak conclusions. They are also completely ignoring the success of a weight-neutral intervention that is included in on of the studies they cite.

Let’s dig in!

When I teach research analysis, I recommend checking something I call “The Do-Do’s” which encompasses two questions: Do the citations support the claims? Do the study data support the results?

In this part of our three-part analysis, we’re going to examine the first question.

Regular readers may have noticed me pointing out in my analyses how often the studies that are cited don’t support the claims. In the case of this study, the question “do the citations support the claims” is particularly important since they are using them to bolster a very limited experimental design, so I’ve devoted this section to some examples.

Bartholomay et al. claim:

“randomized controlled trials conducted among individuals with overw*ight and ob*sity demonstrate that assignment to a low-calorie weight loss diet (e.g., 1200 calories per day) produced greater decreases in binge-eating symptoms than assignment to a wait list control group (Goodrick et al., 1998; Klem et al., 1997; Reeves et al., 2001).”

What I want to note here is that the study authors have created a false binary between low calorie weight loss diets and wait list control group which would be bad enough. In this case, they’ve done so by blatantly ignoring the inclusion of a weight-neutral intervention in the very first study they cited.

Let’s look at the three studies they cited to, in theory, support this claim:

The first study they cite is

1998 Nondieting versus dieting treatment for overw*ight binge-eating womenG K Goodrick 1, W S Poston 2nd, K T Kimball, R S Reeves, J P ForeytDOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.66.2.363

This study evaluated non dieting vs dieting treatment for what they described as “overw*ight binge-eating women.” There were 219 subjects and they were assigned randomly to diet treatment, non-diet treatment, or wait-list control (which is a form of control group in which participants are told that they were on a wait list for the intervention, while being offered no intervention.)

The diet intervention was a restricted diet “reinforced with behavioral strategies” and the non-diet treatment was “therapy designed to help participants break out of their dieting cycles.” It involved 18 months of contact - 6 months of trea