Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28549063›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Endocrinology2017

Food addiction and obesity: unnecessary medicalization of hedonic overeating.

Graham Finlayson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Endocrinology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Similarities and Differences in Diagnostic Scales.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Signaling pathways in obesity: mechanisms and therapeutic interventions.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Graham FinlaysonSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine &Health, Lifton Place, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, West Yorkshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of addiction is loaded with connotations and is often used for its political as much as its medical utility. The scientific case for 'food addiction' as a clinical phenotype currently rests on its association with generic diagnostic criteria for substance-related disorders being applied to everyday foods and eating-related problems. This has fused the concept of obesity with addiction regardless of whether it fits the definition. The hedonic, or reward, system can account for the ingestion of foods and drugs, confirming that they share neural substrates that differentiate liking and wanting. These are normal processes that are recruited for natural homeostatic behaviours and can explain the phenomenon of hedonic overeating as a consequence of human motivation pushed to extremes by an obesogenic environment. Food addiction constitutes a medicalization of common eating behaviours, taking on the properties of a disease. The use of this medical language has implications for the way in which society views overeating and obesity.

Indexed as

PhilosophyAnimalsBehavior, AddictiveFeeding BehaviorHumansHyperphagiaMedicalizationObesity

Identifiers

PMID28549063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.