Relationship between Snacking Patterns, Diet Quality and Risk of Overweight and Abdominal Obesity in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snacking is very common among Americans; the impact of variety of snacking patterns on nutrient intake and weight status is unclear. This study examined the associations of snacking patterns on nutrient intake and weight in U.S. children 2-18 years (n=14,220) participating in the 2001-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Cluster analysis generated 12 distinct snacking patterns, explaining 57% of variance in total calories consumed. Only 8% of the children did not consume snacks on the day of the 24-hour recall. Cakes, cookies and pastries was the most common snacking pattern (16%) followed by miscellaneous snacks (e.g. whole milk, orange juice and meat/fish/poultry; 13%), and crackers and salty snacks (10%). Most snacking patterns resulted in higher total energy intake than the no snack pattern. After controlling for energy intake, most snacking patterns resulted in higher intakes of fiber; vitamins A, C, B12, and K; riboflavin; folate; potassium; calcium; zinc; and magnesium than the no snack pattern. However, most of the snacking patterns resulted in higher total intake of saturated fatty acids, solid fats, added sugars, and sodium (nutrients to limit). Several of the snacking patterns (i.e. cakes/cookies/pastries, crackers/salty snacks, sweets, and other grains) were associated with a reduced risk of overweight and abdominal obesity. Overall, several snacking patterns compared with non-snackers had better diet quality and were less likely to be overweight or obese and less likely to have abdominal obesity. Education is needed to improve snacking patterns in terms of nutrients to limit in the diet.
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 | 0.001 | 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".