Comparison of a dietary intervention promoting high intakes of fruits and vegetables with a low-fat approach: long-term effects on dietary intakes, eating behaviours and body weight in postmenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term effects of two dietary approaches on changes in dietary intakes, eating behaviours and body weight: (1) approach using restrictive messages to limit high-fat foods (low-fat intake; LOFAT); (2) approach emphasising non-restrictive messages directed towards the inclusion of fruits and vegetables (high intake of fruits and vegetables; HIFV). A total of sixty-eight overweight or obese postmenopausal women were randomly assigned to one of the two dietary approaches. The 6-month dietary intervention included three group sessions and ten individual sessions with a dietitian. Dietary intakes, eating behaviours and anthropometrics were measured at baseline, at the end of the dietary intervention (T = 6) and 6 months and 12 months after the end of the intervention (T = 12 and T = 18). In the LOFAT group, energy and fat intakes were lower at T = 6 when compared with baseline and remained lower at T = 12 and T = 18. In the HIFV group, fruit and vegetable intakes increased significantly at T = 6 but were no longer significantly different from baseline at T = 12 and T = 18. Dietary restraint increased at T = 6 and remained higher than baseline at T = 18 in the LOFAT group while no significant change was observed in the HIFV group. At T = 6, body weight was significantly lower than baseline in both groups (LOFAT: - 3.7 (SD 2.8) kg; HIFV: - 1.8 (SD 3.0) kg) and no significant difference in body-weight change from baseline was found between groups at T = 18. We concluded that weight loss was similar at 1-year follow-up in both dietary approaches. Despite relatively good improvements in the short term, the adherence to a 6-month dietary intervention promoting high intakes of fruits and vegetables was difficult to maintain.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".