Restraint theory's account of why cognitive dietary control leaves eating vulnerable to collapse — a model and its argument, not a demonstrated causal chain.
What the evidence says
- Restrained eaters use cognitive rules to limit eating, replacing physiological cues[1]
- When cognitive restraints are breached (a "forbidden" food is consumed), disinhibition occurs — experimentally, restrained eaters consumed ~66% more ice cream after a milkshake preload while unrestrained eaters consumed ~47% less (normal satiation) — *RELAYED, not measured by that paper: the experiment is Herman & Mack 1975, and the library holds it as `cwh05`, abstract-verified — but the two figures are NOT in that abstract*, so they stay relayed through `cwh01`[2],[3]
- Prohibiting foods increases their psychological desirability — the forbidden fruit effect[1]
- *On restraint theory's account*, dieting replaces physiological regulation with cognitively-controlled eating that is vulnerable to collapse[1]
- Restrained eating often precedes binge eating rather than preventing it — and `cdi02` argues it promotes it. *`cdi02` is a paywalled encyclopedia chapter, verified only as to existence*, so the direction claim stands on an unread secondary synthesis[4]
- Breaking dietary "rules" is followed by overeating rather than a return to the rule — the direction of cause is the model's claim, not a separate finding[1]