Central obesity is associated with lower intake of whole-grain bread and less frequent breakfast and lunch: results from the HUNT study, an adult all-population survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All-population and area-based investigations of diet in central obesity are scarce. We used cross-sectional data from 50 339 individuals who responded to the HUNT3 survey of 2006-2008, which recruited from all county-residing adults 20 years and older, to investigate whether those with central obesity eat and drink differently than others. Answers to dietary questions were recoded and analyzed with multiple linear regression, using waist/hip ratio (WHR), age, and sex as explanatory variables. Frequencies of consumption or amounts of food, beverages, and meals were compared among WHR quartiles. Central obesity was present in the quartile with the highest WHR, WHR4 (WHR ≥ 0.917 for women and 0.981 for men) but not in the quartile with the lowest WHR, WHR1 (WHR < 0.817 for women and 0.895 for men). Dietary variables differed markedly by age and sex. After adjustment for these factors and for multiple testing, we found significant differences between WHR4 and WHR1 for 19 of 30 dietary variables. Central obesity was associated with a lower intake of any bread, and of whole-grain bread in particular. Intake of fruits and berries, vegetables, and pasta and rice was less, and intake of sausages and hamburgers and boiled potatoes was more frequent. Intake of alcohol, tea, and fruit juice was lower in those with central obesity, whereas intake of sugar-free soft drinks and coffee was higher. The frequency of breakfast and lunch was lower and of nightly meals was higher in those with central obesity. In conclusion, in this large area-based population, central obesity was associated with differences in dietary habits, some of which (such as decreased consumption of whole-grain bread and increased intake of sugar-free drinks) are of possible clinical significance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".