National pattern of grain products consumption among Canadians in association with body weight status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity in Canadian adults is showing upward trends. Consumption of whole-grains is one recommendation for the prevention of obesity. Despite the apparent nutritional and energy content differences between whole and refined grains, knowledge relating refined grains to weight gain in Canadian adults is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the consumption of specific grain-based foods at the regional and national levels, and to evaluate the association between grain consumption with overweight or obesity in Canadian adults. METHODS: We used the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey data. The association between type of grain product consumed and Body Mass Index (BMI) in adults aged ≥19y was evaluated by logistic regression. RESULTS: The mean daily intake of whole grains (86 ± 1.9 g/day) was significantly less than refined grains (276.6 ± 3.8 g/day), which was different across provinces. After adjustment for caloric needs, male consumers showed significantly lower intake of whole grains than females. Accordingly, the incidence of overweight or obesity was higher in males than in females. Also, in comparison to whole grains, the consumption of refined grains was associated with a higher risk of overweight or obesity among adults. CONCLUSION: Canadians' preference was refined grain products consumption, based on 2004 Health Survey, which was significantly associated with overweight/obesity. Hence, consumption of whole grains should be more effectively promoted rather than refined grain products to prevent obesity and its complications such as cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes.
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".