Dietary restraint, exercise, and bone density in young women: are they related?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women with high scores for dietary restraint have been found to have higher 24-h urinary cortisol excretion and a higher prevalence of subclinical ovulatory disturbances, both of which may be risk factors for bone loss. The purpose of this study was to explore relationships between dietary restraint and bone health in regularly menstruating young women. METHODS: 62 women (age: 21.7 +/- 2.5 yr) had body composition and total body and lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and content (BMC) assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Dietary restraint was assessed using the restraint subscale from the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire: 29 women had low restraint (LR; restraint score 0--5), 33 had high restraint (HR; restraint score 13--21). Exercise (h x wk(-1)) was assessed by questionnaire on two occasions. RESULTS: LR and HR women were similar in age and body composition (fat mass = 15.0 +/- 4.7 kg, lean mass = 40.9 +/- 4.9 kg), but HR women exercised more (3.4 +/- 1.7 vs 2.2 +/- 1.8 h x wk(-1), P < 0.05). Exercise was correlated with BMD and BMC, and when it was included as a covariate, total body BMC was significantly lower in HR than LR women. In multiple regression analysis, weekly hours of exercise and restraint score were significant predictors of total body BMD and BMC. CONCLUSION: The observations of this cross-sectional study suggest that high levels of cognitive dietary restraint, or associated factors such as higher cortisol, may attenuate the positive effects of exercise on bone in young 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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".