0198 THE EFFECTS OF SLEEP RESTRICTION ON FOOD INTAKE: THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute sleep restriction (SR) often leads to an increase in energy intake (EI). However, large variability in food intake is often observed, which suggests that individual factors may affect EI after SR. The objective of this study was to explore the influence of personality traits (excitement seeking, impulsiveness and sense of competence), implicit attitudes toward food, and sensitivity to reward and punishment on EI after sleep loss. Seventeen subjects (11men; 18-33y) completed a personality inventory (NEO-PI-3), an Implicit Association Test (IAT; this test measures implicit attitudes toward healthy and unhealthy foods), and the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ). Ad libitum EI over 24h was assessed following an habitual sleep night and a 50% SR held during the second half of the night. The difference in EI between sleep conditions (∆EI) was calculated for each subject. Correlations between ∆EI and subscales of the NEO-PI-3, IAT score and SPSRQ scores were computed. A multiple linear regression model was performed to examine the unique contribution of each variable that was significantly associated with ∆EI. We controlled for gender, resting energy expenditure and fat% in these analysis. ∆EI was associated with excitement seeking (r=-0.70, p<0.01) and IAT score (r=0.70, p<0.01), suggesting that less excitement seeking and more positive attitudes towards unhealthy food lead to greater EI after SR. Impulsiveness, sense of competence and SPSRQ scores were not associated with ∆EI. Multiple linear regression modeling demonstrated that excitement seeking and implicit attitudes collectively explain 62% of the variance in EI after SR (p<0.001). Excitement seeking was the largest predictor (β=-0.63, p<0.01), followed by implicit attitudes (β=0.40, p<0.05). These results suggest that excitement seeking and implicit attitudes toward food are key factors in explaining variations in EI after sleep loss. Since implicit attitudes are strongly related to educational and personal beliefs/values and personality traits are shaped by early life experiences which tend to remain stable over time, addressing weight gain issues in sleep restriction settings (e.g. rotating shifts) may be more challenging than simply addressing eating behaviors.
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 | 0.000 | 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".