Effects of weight loss via high fat vs. low fat alternate day fasting diets on free fatty acid profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease risk is associated with excess body weight and elevated plasma free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations. This study examines how an alternate-day fasting (ADF) diet high (HF) or low (LF) in fat affects plasma FFA profiles in the context of weight loss, and changes in body composition and lipid profiles. After a 2-week weight maintenance period, 29 women (BMI 30-39.9 kg/m(2)) 25-65 years old were randomized to an 8-week ADF-HF (45% fat) diet or an ADF-LF (25% fat) diet with 25% energy intake on fast days and ad libitum intake on feed days. Body weight, BMI and waist circumference were assessed weekly and body composition was measured using dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Total and individual FFA and plasma lipid concentrations were measured before and after weight loss. Body weight, BMI, fat mass, total cholesterol, LDL-C and triglyceride concentrations decreased (P < 0.05) in both groups. Total FFA concentrations also decreased (P < 0.001). In the ADF-LF group, decreases were found in several more FFAs than in the ADF-HF group. In the ADF-HF group, FFA concentrations were positively correlated with waist circumference. Depending on the macronutrient composition of a diet, weight loss with an ADF diet decreases FFA concentrations through potentially different mechanisms.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".