Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Oct;108(10):1646–1653. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.07.016

Table 3.

Estimated Adequacy of Weight Gain Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) from Adjusted Multiple Linear Regression Models for Three Restrained Eating Subscales

Restrained Eatersa Non-restrained Eatersa
BMI Estimated Adequacy of Weight Gain Ratio 95% CI Estimated Adequacy of Weight Gain Ratio 95% CI p valueb
Underweight 0.94 0.68 1.19 1.02 0.89 1.16 0.544
Normal 1.50 1.40 1.60 1.31 1.23 1.40 0.004
Overweight 1.97 1.80 2.15 1.79 1.54 2.03 0.221
Obese 2.09 1.98 2.21 1.73 1.53 1.93 0.002
Dietersc Non-dietersc
Underweight 0.88 0.66 1.11 0.94 0.77 1.11 0.662
Normal 1.38 1.25 1.52 1.25 1.12 1.37 0.033
Overweight 1.92 1.72 2.12 1.58 1.35 1.80 0.012
Obese 2.11 1.96 2.26 1.73 1.54 1.91 0.000
Cyclersd Non-cyclersd
Overall 1.12 0.94 1.31 0.95 0.78 1.12 0.001
a

Models adjusted for BMI, work, physical activity, and weight gain attitudes. Estimated values are for women who were working during the second trimester, had mean levels of recreational physical activity, and mean levels of weight gain attitudes.

b

p-values test the effect of restrained eating, dieting, or weight cycling on adequacy of weight gain within each category of BMI

c

Models adjusted for BMI, maternal age, maternal race, and poverty. Estimated values are for white women age 29 (mean age), in the middle income category.

d

Models adjusted for BMI, work, physical activity, weight gain attitudes, maternal education, maternal race, and poverty. Estimated values are for white women who were working during the second trimester, had mean levels of recreational physical activity, mean levels of weight gain attitudes, some college education, and were in the middle income category. Estimated values shown are for underweight women, however there was no effect modification by BMI.