Resistance To Weight Gain During Overfeeding: A Neat Explanation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals vary in susceptibility to weight gain in response to overeating; however, the reason for such variation has never been clear. A recent study of 16 nonobese young adults followed on an ambulatory basis for 8 weeks found that changes in nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) account for the variations in fat storage that occur in response to experimentally controlled overeating. NEAT is the thermogenesis that accompanies physical activity other than volitional exercise. Individuals in whom overeating effectively activates NEAT dissipate as much as 69% of the excess energy as heat. Those less able to activate NEAT store a higher proportion of the excess calories as fat. Other studies have shown that genotype is an important determinant of resistance to overfeeding-induced weight gain. Spontaneous weight gain is accompanied by rises in plasma norepinephrine, insulin, and leptin levels, suggesting that a change in autonomic nervous system activity or in pattern of hormonal secretion might play a role in the activation of overeating-induced NEAT
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".