Alterations in Metabolic Profile Occur in Normal-Weight and Obese Men during the Ramadan Fast Despite No Changes in Anthropometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the variations in eating behavior, appetite ratings, satiety efficiency, energy expenditure, anthropometric and metabolic profile markers prior to, during as well as 1 and 4 months after Ramadan in normal-weight and obese men. Anthropometric, energy expenditure (indirect calorimetry and accelerometry), metabolic (fasting blood sample), appetite (visual analogue scales), and eating behavior (Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire) measurements were performed in 10 normal-weight (age: 25.2 ± 4.7 years; BMI: 24.4 ± 1.9 kg/m(2)) and 10 obese (age: 27.0 ± 4.5 years; BMI: 34.8 ± 3.7 kg/m(2)) men. The satiety quotient (SQ) was calculated 180 minutes after breakfast consumption. All anthropometric variables, as well as resting and total energy expenditure, were greater in obese compared to normal-weight participants (P = 0.02-0.0001). Similarly, obese participants had greater triglycerides, insulin, and homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance concentrations (P = 0.02-0.002). Greater apolipoprotein B, glucose, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein concentrations were noted during Ramadan (P = 0.04-0.0001). Dietary restraint scores were also greater during Ramadan (P = 0.0001). No differences in anthropometry, other metabolic profile markers, energy expenditure, appetite ratings, and SQ were noted across sessions. Lastly, changes in anthropometric measurements correlated with delta metabolic profile markers, as well as changes in disinhibition eating behavior trait and dietary restraint scores. The Ramadan fast led to increases in certain metabolic profile markers despite no changes in appetite and anthropometry.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".