Book Review: Eating Disorders: Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Obesity. A Clinician's Guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Obesity. A Clinician's Guide. Zafra Cooper, Christopher G Fairburn, Deborah M Hawker. New York: The Guilford Press; 2003. 232 p. US$35.00. Reviewer rating: Excellent Many weight-loss programs and manuals have been developed in the last 10 years to address the steady rise in the prevalence of obesity (defined as body mass index between 30 and 40) and its associated medical complications, including diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. The outcome for patients so far has been to achieve weight loss in the short-term, followed by failure to sustain that weight loss in the long term, a frustrating experience for both patients and clinicians treating obesity. The authors of this book addressed the failure to sustain weight loss in the long term by proposing an innovative therapeutic approach that is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial at Oxford University. They acknowledge that proposing this innovative approach remains premature until the research evidence supporting its effectiveness is available. Nonetheless, they produced the book now in response to requests from clinicians seeking guidance for the treatment of patients with obesity, particularly those who are at risk for developing serious medical complications. The authors are internationally known for their research and experience using cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) to treat eating disorders and obesity. The innovative approach they propose in this book addresses the obstacles preventing weight maintenance after the initial weight loss and offers patients the techniques that will allow them to maintain their new weight, an indispensable step that has so far been missing in the long-term management of obesity. Briefly, the authors suggest that the disappointing long-term results of behavioural treatments for obesity may be explained by the lack of distinction between the immediate weight-loss objective, which requires sustaining an energy deficit and is usually achieved by most patients, and the objective of maintaining the lost weight, which is a long-term activity seldom addressed by most of the behavioural weight-loss programs currently available. The situation is further complicated by the fact that most obese patients join a weight-loss program with the goal of achieving an unrealistically low weight that they believe will allow them to achieve other personally important objectives, such as becoming physically attractive and improving self-confidence and self-esteem. Since most patients experience a decline in the rate of weight loss after 4 to 6 months of attempting to lose weight, they soon realize that they will achieve neither their unrealistic low weight goal nor their other objectives of physical attractiveness and improved selfesteem and self-confidence. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.062 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".