Adult Obesity Does Not Predict 6‐Year Weight Gain in Men: The Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the longitudinal relation between history of adult obesity and the 6-year trajectory of weight change in men. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Subjects were healthy, affluent men (n = 761) between the ages of 20 and 78 years who completed at least four comprehensive medical exams at the Cooper Clinic between 1987 and 2003. Maximum adult weight was reported, and current height was measured at baseline. Body weight and cardiorespiratory fitness were measured at all examinations. Adult obesity status was determined from self-reported maximum weight and measured height at baseline as BMI > or = 30 kg/m(2). Weight at all examinations was regressed on a history of adult obesity using linear mixed effects modeling. RESULTS: At baseline, men reporting a history of adult obesity were significantly heavier than men reporting no such history (BMI 29.8 vs. 25.0 kg/m(2); p < 0.05). However, the rate of weight gain among men with a history of obesity was slower than among men without a history of adult obesity (0.04 vs. 0.18 kg/yr; p = 0.09), although this difference was only marginally significant. Fitness modulated the relationship between history of obesity and weight change over time, and both higher levels of fitness and greater frequency of dieting were associated with attenuated weight gain. In contrast, chronic disease and depression were associated with accelerated weight gain. DISCUSSION: Although a history of obesity was associated with higher weight, it did not seem to result in accelerated weight gain over time. Additionally, dieting and fitness were important for minimizing weight gain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".