The Association Between Sleep Duration and Weight Gain in Adults: A 6-Year Prospective Study from the Quebec Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between sleep duration and subsequent body weight and fat gain. DESIGN: Six-year longitudinal study. SETTING: Community setting. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy-six adults aged 21 to 64 years from the Quebec Family Study. More than half of the sample is drawn from families with at least 1 parent and 1 offspring with a body mass index of 32 kg/m2 or higher. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Body composition measurements and self-reported sleep duration were determined. Changes in adiposity indices were compared between short- (5-6 hours), average- (7-8 hours), and long- (9-10 hours) duration sleeper groups. After adjustment for age, sex, and baseline body mass index, short-duration sleepers gained 1.98 kg (95% confidence interval: 1.16-2.82) more and long-duration sleepers gained 1.58 kg (95% CI: 1.02-2.56) more than did average-duration sleepers over 6 years. Short- and long-duration sleepers were 35% and 25% more likely to experience a 5-kg weight gain, respectively, as compared with average-duration sleepers over 6 years. The risk of developing obesity was elevated for short- and long-duration sleepers as compared with average-duration sleepers, with 27% and 21% increases in risk, respectively. These associations remained significant after inclusion of important covariates and were not affected by adjustment for energy intake and physical activity participation. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that both short and long sleeping times predict an increased risk of future body weight and fat gain in adults. Hence, these results emphasize the need to add sleep duration to the panel of determinants that contribute to weight gain and obesity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".