Background: High delay discounting (DD), or the tendency to prefer immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards, has been associated with health risk behaviors. This study examined the DD of hyper-palatable foods (HPFs) and money, and their associations with eating motives and binge eating behavior. Methods: An adult sample (N = 296) completed a DD task with single- and cross-commodity conditions with rewards of money and/or HPF (e.g., HPF now vs. HPF later; HPF now vs. money later). Regression models tested the association between DD, and eating motives and binge eating. Results: DD in the HPF now vs. money later condition was positively associated with the reward enhancement motive ($\beta$ = 0.291; p = 0.008) and binge eating behavior ($\beta$ = 0.041; p = 0.017). There were no other significant associations. Conclusions: Decisional impulsivity specific to HPFs (and not decisional impulsivity in general) may be associated with reward-motivated eating and binge eating behavior.

Compensatory eating disorder (CED) is a newly proposed ‘other specified feeding and eating disorder’ that is characterised by recurrent non‐purging compensatory behaviours, overvaluation of weight and shape, and the absence of objective binge eating, low weight, or recent significant weight loss. Although CED has been long documented in research, it remains unclear whether CED represents a distinct clinical diagnosis or a variant presentation of extant eating disorders. In this commentary, we situate CED within the broader eating disorders landscape and call for greater diagnostic clarity. We also provide five concrete future directions that can inform the appropriate classification of CED, including: (1) clarifying core diagnostic features of CED, (2) leveraging statistical models to inform CED classification, (3) establishing CED's longitudinal and prognostic validity, (4) incorporating clinician and patient perspectives on the adoption of CED diagnostic criteria, and (5) weighing risks and benefits of adding a new clinical diagnosis. These guidelines may help our field answer a novel research question that has implications for clinical practice: Is Compensatory Eating Disorder a missing diagnosis in the eating‐disorder nomenclature or is it a misclassified one?

Research supports the premise that greater substance use is associated with fewer sources of environmental reinforcement. However, it remains unclear whether types of environmental reinforcement (e.g., social or work) may differentially influence use. This study tested the association between types of environmental reinforcement and engagement in multiple health risk behaviors (alcohol use, binge eating, and nicotine use). Cross-sectional data were collected from a general population sample of US adults (N = 596). The Pleasant Events Schedule (PES) was used to measure sources of reinforcement. Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) characterized different areas of environmental reinforcement and correlations with alcohol consumption, binge eating, and nicotine use. A four-factor structure of the PES demonstrated a conceptually cohesive model with acceptable fit and partial strict invariance. Social-related reinforcement was positively associated with alcohol consumption (β = 0.30, p < 0.001) and binge eating (β = 0.26, p < 0.001). Work/school-related reinforcement was negatively associated with binge eating (β = −0.14, p = 0.006). No areas of reinforcement were significantly associated with nicotine use (p values = 0.069 to 0.755). Social-related activities may be associated with engagement in multiple health risk behaviors (more binge eating and alcohol use), whereas work/school-related activities may be preventative against binge eating. Understanding these relationships can inform prevention efforts targeting health risk behaviors.