A high exercise load is linked to pathological weight control behavior and eating disorders in female fitness instructors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demographic data, exercise habits, weight control behavior, attitudes towards body shape, eating disorder (ED) experience, and menstrual regularity among female fitness instructors were descriptively assessed. A 60-item questionnaire was sent to 295 female fitness instructors at eight fitness centers. Responders (57%) reported a mean weekly exercise load of 5.5 h week(-1) (SD 2.6), which indicates frequent training, however, less than that of athletes. Overall, 35% reported ED experience (DSM-IV criteria), with an onset at 15-17 years of age. The problems had lasted 5-7 years, and 20% of the entire group reported recovery, however, 11% still had EDs. For the entire group, it was found that a high weekly exercise load was linked to a pathological weight control behavior. Fitness instructors with an active ED exercised more than instructors who never had an ED or who had a past ED. Menstrual irregularity was more common among instructors who did not use contraceptives (14%), compared to those who did (5%). As ED experience and pathological weight control behavior were common in the studied group, the importance of guidelines regarding communication from female fitness instructors about healthy training habits to regular exercisers is discussed in the article.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".