This study examined the relationships among eating attitudes, exercise identity, and body alienation in ultramarathoners. Eighty-seven competitive ultramarathoners (73 males, 14 females) completed the Eating Attitudes Test–26, Exercise Identity Scale, and Body Alienation Scale as part of their pre-race registration. Correlation coefficients revealed that eating attitudes were positively related to exercise identity (R = 0.31) and injury tolerance (R = 0.43), and that exercise identity was positively related to injury tolerance (R = 0.33). MANOVA further indicated that subjects with high exercise identity reported more eating disorder behaviors [F(2, 80) = 7.73, P < 0.001 J and higher injury tolerance [F (2, 80) = 3.69, P < 0.05] than persons with low exercise identity. Female ultramarathoners scoring high on exercise identity were more likely to report aberrant eating behaviors [F (2, 80) = 3.39, P < 0.05J and higher training intensity levels [F (2, 80) = 3.91, p < 0.02J than were average males and the low- or moderate-exercise identifying females.
Christopher D. Lantz, Deborah J. Rhea and Karin Mesnier
Lori M. Cox, Christopher D. Lantz and Jerry L. Mayhew
Early identification of potentially harmful eating patterns is critical in the effective remediation of such behaviors. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the degree lo which various factors including gender, family history, and athletic status predict disordered eating behavior; social physique anxiety and percent body fat were added as potential predictor variables. The eating behaviors of student-athletes and nonathlete students were also compared. One hundred eighty undergraduate students (males = 49, females =131) provided demographic information and completed the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT) and the Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS). Stepwise multiple-regression analysis indicated that social physique anxiety, gender, and body fat (%Fat) combined to predict 34% of disordered eating behaviors: EAT = 0.921 SPA - 1.05 %Fat + 10.95 Gender (1 = M. 2 = F) - 17.82 (R 2 = .34, SE = 4.68). A one-way ANOVA comparing ihe eating behaviors of athletes and nonathletes revealed no significant difference between these groups.