High Cognitive Dietary Restraint Is Associated With Increased Cortisol Excretion in Postmenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive dietary restraint (perceived ongoing effort to limit dietary intake to manage body weight) is common in women at all life stages. In young women, high dietary restraint has been associated with both increased excretion of cortisol (a stress hormone) and reduced bone mass. Whether this occurs in older women is unknown and is reported here for the first time. METHODS: Postmenopausal women (49-75 years old) with high (n = 41) or low (n = 37) dietary restraint were compared to examine differences in urinary cortisol excretion, body composition assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (bone mineral density, % body fat), dietary intake, anthropometrics, current exercise, and perceived stress. RESULTS: Women with high or low dietary restraint did not differ in age, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, energy intake, perceived stress, current exercise, or measures of body composition. However, urinary cortisol excretion was higher in the high restraint group (248.2 +/- 61.7 nmol/d vs 204.3 +/- 66.1 nmol/d; p =.01). Multiple regression analysis indicated that restraint group (high or low) independently predicted 7.6% of the variance in cortisol excretion. CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal women with high dietary restraint excrete more cortisol than do those with low restraint, suggesting that dietary restraint may be a source of stress. Although this was not associated with negative health effects in this sample, further investigation is warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".