Eating behaviours, dietary profile and body composition according to dieting history in men and women of the Québec Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present cross-sectional study was to compare eating behaviours (cognitive dietary restraint, disinhibition and susceptibility to hunger), dietary profile and physiological variables according to the practice of dieting: current dieting; history of dieting in the 10-year period that preceded the study; no dieting during the same period. Dieting history, anthropometric markers of adiposity, RMR, dietary profile (3 d food record) and eating behaviours (three-factor eating questionnaire) were determined in a sample of 244 men and 352 women. A greater proportion of women (31.8 %) than men (16.8 %) reported that they had been on a diet over the past 10 years (P=0.0001). In both genders, current and past dieters had a higher BMI (P<0.05) than non-dieters and current dieters had lower reported energy intakes than past dieters and non-dieters (only in women) (P<0.05). Current and past dieters also had higher scores for all eating behaviours and their subscales (P<0.05; except for susceptibility to hunger in men) compared with non-dieters (adjusted for age, reported energy intake, percentage of dietary fat, BMI and RMR). Moreover, for each dieting-history category, women had significantly higher scores for cognitive dietary restraint than men (P<0.05). In conclusion, the present study showed that current and past dieters had higher scores for cognitive dietary restraint and disinhibition compared with non-dieters. As disinhibition has previously been associated with a greater risk of subsequent weight gain, interventions aimed at preventing an increase in disinhibition may be promising for long-term weight maintenance.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".