*3.2. BMI Group Comparisons*

The main effect of gender was not significant (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 4.3; *p* = 0.119). The results showed a main effect for age (F(2,1139) = 23.0; *p* < 0.001; η<sup>2</sup> = 0.04), and the post-hoc tests (Bonferroni-corrected) highlighted that obese participants were older than the overweight participants, who were themselves older than the normal-weight participants (respectively: OB/OW mean difference = 3.25, SD = 1.2, *p* < 0.05; OB/NW mean difference = 5.86, SD = 1.0, *p* < 0.001; OW/NW mean difference = 2.60, SD = 0.7, *p* < 0.001). In view of this result, all the remaining BMI group comparisons were adjusted for age (ANCOVAs). Table 2 summarizes the BMI group comparisons for the mood and eating behaviors variables.

Concerning mood measures (HAD), there was a main effect for *Depression* (*p* < 0.001) and pairwise comparisons adjusted for age showed that scores were significantly higher among the obese group than the overweight and normal-weight groups (OB/OW mean difference = 1.61, SD = 0.5; OB/NW mean difference = 1.96, SD = 0.4). There was no main effect for *Anxiety* (*p* = 0.220).

The analyses indicated a main effect for positive emotional eating (*EMAQ Positive*: *p* < 0.001) and pairwise comparisons adjusted for age showed that the obese and overweight participants reported lower scores than the normal-weight participants did (OB/NW mean difference = 0.50, SD = 0.1; OW/NW mean difference = 0.32, SD = 0.8). There was also a main effect for negative emotional eating (*EMAQ Negative; p* < 0.001), and pairwise comparisons adjusted for age indicated that the obese participants reported higher scores than the overweight participants, who themselves reported higher scores than the normal-weight participants (OB/OW mean difference = 0.63, SD = 0.2; OB/NW mean difference = 1.20, SD = 0.2; OW/NW mean difference = 0.58, SD = 0.1).

Regarding intuitive eating (*IES-2*), the main effect of BMI groups emerged for the *Eating for physical rather than emotional reasons* subscale (*EPR*: *p* < 0.001) and the *Reliance on Hunger and Satiety Cues* subscale (*RHSC*: *p* < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons adjusted for age highlighted that the obese participants had lower scores than the overweight participants, who themselves reported lower scores than the normal-weight participants for *EPR* (OB/OW mean difference = 0.36, SD = 0.16; OB/NW mean difference = 0.83, SD = 0.1; OW/NW mean difference = 0.47, SD = 0.9). For *RHSC,* the obese and overweight participants reported lower scores than the normal-weight participants (OB/NW mean difference = 0.69, SD = 0.1; OW/NW mean difference = 0.49, SD = 0.8). There were no significant differences between the BMI groups for the *Unconditional Permission to Eat* subscale (*UPE: p* = 0.445).


 >

 14.6

1.1082 0.001

**Table 2.** BMI group comparisons.



Eat. mYFAS: modified Yale Food Addiction Scale. NS: not significant.

Concerning the measure of food addiction (*mYFAS*), comparisons were conducted on the symptom count and the symptom severity as well as on the symptom and diagnosis prevalence. The results showed a main effect of BMI groups for the *Symptom Count* (*p* < 0.001) and pairwise comparisons (adjusted for age) highlighted that obese and overweight participants reported higher scores than normal-weight participants (OB/NW mean difference = 0.73, SD = 0.2; OW/NW mean difference = 0.33, SD = 0.1).

Concerning symptom severity, the analyses indicated a main effect for *Loss of control* (*p* < 0.001), *Cut down* (*p* < 0.001), *Time spent* (*p* < 0.05), *Impact activities* (*p* < 0.05), *Withdrawal* (*p* < 0.001), *Tolerance* (*p* < 0.001), *Clinical distress* (*p* < 0.001), and *Clinical impairments* (*p* < 0.001), while the groups did not significantly differ from each other for *Despite problems*(*p*=0.840). The pairwise comparisons (see Table 2) indicated that the obese participants differed significantly from the normal-weight participants for all the symptoms' severity except for *Time Spent* (*p* = 0.078). In addition, the obese participants differed significantly from the overweight participants for *Impact activities* (OB/OW mean difference = 0.16, SD = 0.7), *Withdrawal* (OB/OW mean difference = 0.17, SD = 0.1), *Clinical distress* (OB/OW mean difference = 0.28, SD = 0.1), and *Clinical impairments* (OB/OW mean difference = 0.25, SD = 0.1), but these two groups did not differ significantly for *Loss of control, Cut down, Time spent*, and *Tolerance* symptoms' severity.

Regarding symptoms' prevalence (see Figure 1), significant differences between the BMI groups emerged for *Loss of control* (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 14.0; *p* < 0.001; Cramers'V = 0.11), with a higher proportion among the obese group than the normal-weight group only. The results also showed a main effect for *Impact activities* (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 8.0; *p* < 0.05; Cramers'V = 0.08) and *Withdrawal* (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 11.1; *p* < 0.005; Cramers'V = 0.10) with a higher proportion among the obese group than among both the overweight and normal-weight groups. In addition, the results highlighted significant differences between the BMI groups for *Cut down* (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 22.9; *p* < 0.001; Cramers'V = 0.14), and *Clinical significance* (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 41.1; *p* < 0.001; Cramers'V = 0.19), with a higher proportion among both the obese and overweight groups than the normal-weight group. There was no significant main effect of BMI groups for *Time spent* (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 5.6; *p* = 0.800), *Despite problems* (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 2.7; *p* = 0.259) and *Tolerance* (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 5.7; *p* = 0.570).

**Figure 1.** Prevalence of modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (*mYFAS*) symptoms and food addiction diagnosis by BMI group. For each pair of BMI groups, the proportions are compared using a z-test. If a pair of values is significantly different, the values have different subscript letters assigned to them.

Finally, the analyses indicated a main effect of BMI groups for the mYFAS *Diagnosis* prevalence (χ<sup>2</sup> (2, *n* = 1142) = 35.9; *p* < 0.001; Cramers'V = 0.18) and binary logistic regressions showed that relative to the normal-weight group, the odds ratio of meeting the FA diagnosis was 4.56 (95% CI (2.44–8.51), *p* < 0.001; Cramers'V = 0.16) for the obese and 2.63 (95% CI (1.62–4.25), *p* < 0.001; Cramers'V = 0.12) for the overweight participants.
