Multivitamin and dietary supplements, body weight and appetite: results from a cross-sectional and a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were conducted to compare characteristics of consumers and non-consumers of vitamin and/or dietary supplements (study 1) and to assess the effect of a multivitamin and mineral supplementation during a weight-reducing programme (study 2). Body weight and composition, energy expenditure, and Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire scores were compared between consumers and non-consumers of micronutrients and/or dietary supplements in the Québec Family Study (study 1). In study 2, these variables and appetite ratings (visual analogue scales) were measured in forty-five obese non-consumers of supplements randomly assigned to a double-blind 15-week energy restriction ( - 2930 kJ/d) combined with a placebo or with a multivitamin and mineral supplement. Compared with non-consumers, male consumers of vitamin and/or dietary supplements had a lower body weight (P < 0.01), fat mass (P < 0.05), BMI (P < 0.05), and a tendency for greater resting energy expenditure (P = 0.06). In women, the same differences were observed but not to a statistically significant extent. In addition, female supplements consumers had lower disinhibition and hunger scores (P < 0.05). In study 2, body weight was significantly decreased after the weight-loss intervention (P < 0.001) with no difference between treatment groups. However, fasting and postprandial appetite ratings were significantly reduced in multivitamin and mineral-supplemented women (P < 0.05). Usual vitamin and/or dietary supplements consumption and multivitamin and mineral supplementation during a weight-reducing programme seems to have an appetite-related effect in women. However, lower body weight and fat were more detectable in male than in female vitamin and/or dietary supplements consumers.
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 | 0.002 | 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".