Nicola Buckland

Dr. Nicola Buckland

Department of Psychology; University of Sheffield, Cathedral Court, 1 Vicar Lane, Sheffield S1 2LT, UK
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
5 November 2020 in Appetite
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NBNicola Buckland
Nicola Buckland
LSLucy F. Swinnerton
Lucy F. Swinnerton
KNKwok Ng
Kwok Ng
MPMenna Price
Menna Price
LWLaura L. Wilkinson
Laura L. Wilkinson
MDMichelle Dalton
Michelle Dalton

1 August 2013 in Eating Behaviors
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NBNicola Buckland
Nicola Buckland
GFGraham Finlayson
Graham Finlayson
MHMarion Hetherington
Marion Hetherington

2 May 2018 in The Journal of Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NBNicola Buckland
Nicola Buckland
DCDiana Camidge
Diana Camidge
FCFiona Croden
Fiona Croden
JLJacquelynne H Lavin
Jacquelynne H Lavin
RSR James Stubbs
R James Stubbs
Graham FinlaysonGraham Finlayson
Graham Finlayson
Low energy–dense (LED) foods reduce energy intake (EI); whether this effect is sustained over time and during weight loss is unknown. This trial examined the effects of LED compared with high energy–dense (HED) meals on appetite, EI, and control over eating in the laboratory and during a weight-management program that encourages unrestricted intake of LED foods [Slimming World, UK (SW)] compared with a self-led Standard Care program [NHS weight-loss plan (SC)]. Overweight and obese women [n = 96; mean ± SD age: 41.03 ± 12.61 y; mean ± SD body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.00 ± 3.61] were recruited from the SW or SC programs. Primary outcomes included appetite, food preferences (liking and wanting for LED and HED foods), cravings, and evening meal EI (LED, HED) in response to calorie-matched LED (≤0.8 kcal/g) and HED (≥2.5 kcal/g) breakfast and lunch meals. Probe-day tests were conducted at weeks 3 and 4 and repeated at weeks 12 and 13 in a within-day crossover design. Secondary outcomes, including body weight and program experience, were measured from weeks 1 to 14 in a parallel-group design. Dietary compliance was monitored with the use of weighed food diaries at weeks 3 and 12. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and completers analyses showed that the SW group lost more weight than the SC group [ITT: −5.9% (95% CI: −4.7%, –7.2%) compared with −3.5% (−2.3%, −4.8%), P < 0.05; completers: −6.2% (−4.8%, −7.6%) compared with 3.9% (−2.5%, −5.2%), P < 0.05]. The SW group reported greater control over eating and more motivation to continue the program compared with the SC group. LED meals increased sensations of fullness and reduced hunger on probe days (P < 0.001). Total-day EI was 1057 ± 73 kcal less (95% CI: 912, 1203 kcal; 36%) under LED compared with HED conditions (P < .001). Liking for LED and HED foods and wanting for HED foods were lower before lunch under LED compared with HED conditions, and liking decreased to a greater extent after the LED lunch. The SW group reported fewer cravings under LED compared with HED conditions (P < 0.05). On probe days, appetite and EI outcomes did not differ between weeks 3 and 12 or between the SW and SC groups. LED meals improve appetite control in women attempting weight loss and the effect is sustainable. Consumption of LED meals likely contributed to weight loss in the SW program. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02012426.

9 July 2018 in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NBNicola Buckland
Nicola Buckland
VEVanessa Er
Vanessa Er
IRIan Redpath
Ian Redpath
KBKristine Beaulieu
Kristine Beaulieu
A growing number of studies suggest that exposure to cues which are associated with weight control can prime or prompt controlled food intake in tempting food environments. However, findings are mixed and understanding which types of cues and for whom such cues may be most effective is needed to inform subsequent research and societal applications. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the effects of exposure to weight control cues compared with control cues on food intake. PsycINFO, Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched using key terms. Hedge’s g was used to calculate effect sizes based on mean food intake, standard deviations and sample sizes extracted from relevant publications and, a random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Twenty-five articles consisting of 26 studies were eligible. Data from 25 studies (31 effect sizes) were available for the meta-analysis. Overall, weight control cues reduced food intake, albeit to a trivial effect (ES: -0.149, 95% CI: -0.271 to − 0.027). Subgroup analyses when studies which induced negative affect were removed showed that for individuals with strong weight control goals the effect was small-to-moderate (ES: -0.440, 95% CI: -0.718 to − 0.163), whereas for individuals with weak weight control goals this effect was trivial and non-significant (ES: 0.014, 95% CI: -0.249 to 0.278). Cue type and level of engagement did not significantly moderate the effect; however, specific cues (low-calorie foods and thin models) and attended engagement yielded significant effects. Caution is needed interpreting these findings as most studies were rated with high risk of bias and a number of studies could not be included in the subgroup analyses. Based on the data available, weight control cues reduce food intake in individuals with strong weight control goals. Further research is needed to explore longer term effects of cue exposure and confirm underlying mechanisms. PROSPERO registry#CRD42016052396.

24 October 2013 in Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DJDonna C. Jessop
Donna C. Jessop
PSPaul Sparks
Paul Sparks
NBNicola Buckland
Nicola Buckland
PHPeter R. Harris
Peter R. Harris
SCSue Churchill
Sue Churchill
There is limited evidence that self-affirmation manipulations can promote health behavior change. The purpose of this study was to explore whether the efficacy of a self-affirmation manipulation at promoting exercise could be enhanced by an implementation intention intervention. Participants (Study 1 N = 120, Study 2 N = 116) were allocated to one of four conditions resulting from the two (self-affirmation manipulation: no affirmation, affirmation) by two (implementation intention manipulation: no implementation intention, implementation intention) experimental design. Exercise behavior was assessed 1 week post-intervention. Contrary to prediction, those participants receiving both manipulations were significantly less likely to increase the amount they exercised compared to those receiving only the self-affirmation manipulation. Incorporating an implementation intention manipulation alongside a self-affirmation manipulation had a detrimental effect on exercise behavior; participants receiving both manipulations exercised significantly less in the week following the intervention.

1 February 2014 in Appetite
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NBNicola Buckland
Nicola Buckland
Graham FinlaysonGraham Finlayson
Graham Finlayson
RERebecca Edge
Rebecca Edge
MHMarion Hetherington
Marion Hetherington