Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there remains controversy regarding the role of macronutrient balance in the etiology of obesity, the consumption of high-fat diets appears to be strongly implicated in its development. Evidence that fat oxidation does not adjust rapidly to acute increases in dietary fat, as well as a decreased capacity to oxidize fat in the postprandial state in the obese, suggest that diets high in fat may lead to the accumulation of fat stores. Novel data is also presented suggesting that in rodents, high-fat diets may lead to the development of leptin resistance in skeletal muscle and subsequent accumulations of muscle triacylglycerol. Nevertheless, several current fad diets recommend drastically reduced carbohydrate intake, with a concurrent increase in fat content. Such recommendations are based on the underlying assumption that by reducing circulating insulin levels, lipolysis and lipid oxidation will be enhanced and fat storage reduced. Numerous supplements are purported to increase fat oxidation (carnitine, conjugated linoleic acid), increase metabolic rate (ephedrine, pyruvate), or inhibit hepatic lipogenesis (hydroxycitrate). All of these compounds are currently marketed in supplemental form to increase weight loss, but few have actually been shown to be effective in scientific studies. To date, there is little or no evidence supporting that carnitine or hydroxycitrate supplementation are of any value for weight loss in humans. Supplements such as pyruvate have been shown to be effective at high dosages, but there is little mechanistic information to explain its purported effect or data to indicate its effectiveness at lower dosages. Conjugated linoleic acid has been shown to stimulate fat utilization and decrease body fat content in mice but has not been tested in humans. The effects of ephedrine, in conjunction with methylxanthines and aspirin, in humans appears unequivocal but includes various cardiovascular side effects. None of these compounds have been tested for their effectiveness or safety over prolonged periods of time.
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) | 0.003 | 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 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".