Weight Cycling and 6‐Year Weight Change in Healthy Adults: The Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the longitudinal relationship between a reported history of weight cycling and the trajectory of weight in a group of normal-weight to obese women and men. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This was a clinic-based cohort study conducted over 6 years. Subjects were healthy women (n = 141) and men (n = 797) age 20 to 78 years who completed at least four comprehensive medical exams at the Cooper Clinic (Dallas, TX) between 1987 and 2003. Weight loss history was reported, and body weight was measured at all examinations. Weight cycling status was derived from weight loss history and defined as > or = five episodes of weight loss of > or = 2.3 kg/episode. Using linear mixed effects models, weight at each examination was regressed on weight cycling status separately for women and men while controlling for selected covariables. RESULTS: Baseline BMI was 23 and 21 kg/m2 among cycling and non-cycling women and was 27 and 25 kg/m2 among cycling and non-cycling men, respectively. We observed a non-significant difference (p = 0.09) in women by cycling status (average weight gain = 0.5 and 0.2 kg/yr among cyclers and non-cyclers, respectively) and no difference in weight gain over time among men by cycling status (average weight gain = 0.2 kg/yr among both groups, p = 0.99). Higher baseline cardiorespiratory fitness level and increased fitness over the follow-up were associated with attenuated weight gain in both women and men. DISCUSSION: In healthy, middle-aged individuals, a history of weight cycling does not seem to increase the risk of long-term weight gain in men; however, this relation needs to be studied further in women.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".