Weight Loss Strategies for Obese Adults: Personalized Weight Management Program vs. Standard Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a 32-week personalized Polar weight management program (PWMP) compared with standard care (SC) on body weight, body composition, waist circumference, and cardiorespiratory fitness in overweight or obese adults. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Overweight or obese (29 +/- 2 kg/m(2)) men and women (n = 74) 38 +/- 5 years of age were randomly assigned into either PWMP (men = 20, women = 21) or SC (men = 15, women = 18). Both groups managed their own diet and exercise program after receiving the same standardized nutrition and physical activity advice. PWMP also received a weight management system with literature to enable the design of a personalized diet and exercise weight loss program. Body weight and body composition, waist circumference, and cardiorespiratory fitness were measured at weeks 0, 16, and 32. RESULTS: Eighty percent of participants completed the 32-week intervention, with a greater proportion of the dropouts being women (PWMP: 2 men vs. 7 women; SC: 2 men vs. 4 women). At 32 weeks, PWMP completers had significantly (p < 0.001) greater losses in body weight [6.2 +/- 3.4 vs. 2.6 +/- 3.6 (standard deviation) kg], fat mass (5.9 +/- 3.4 vs. 2.2 +/- 3.6 kg), and waist circumference (4.4 +/- 4.5 vs. 1.0 +/- 3.6 cm). Weight loss and fat loss were explained by the exercise energy expenditure completed and not by weekly exercise duration. DISCUSSION: More effective weight loss was achieved after treatment with the PWMP compared with SC. The results suggest that the PWMP enables effective weight loss through tools that support self-monitoring without the requirement of more costly approaches to program supervision.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".