Weight Loss Strategies Utilized in a Men’s Weight Loss Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men are underrepresented in weight loss programs and little is currently known about the weight loss strategies men prefer. This study describes the weight loss strategies used by men during a men-only weight loss program. At baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, participants reported how frequently they used 45 weight loss strategies including strategies frequently recommended by the program (i.e., mentioned during every intervention contact; e.g., daily self-weighing), strategies occasionally recommended by the program (i.e., mentioned at least once during the program; e.g., reduce calories from beverages), and strategies not included in the program (e.g., increase daily steps). At baseline participants ( N = 107, 44.2 years, body mass index = 31.4 kg/m 2 , 76.6% White) reported regularly using 7.3 ± 6.6 ( M ± SD) strategies. The intervention group increased the number of strategies used to 19.1 ± 8.3 at 3 months and 17.1 ± 8.4 at 6 months with no changes in the waitlist group. The intervention group reported increased use of most of the strategies frequently recommended by the program (4 of 5), nearly half of the strategies occasionally recommended by the program (10 of 24), and one strategy not included in the program (of 16) at 6 months. The intervention effect at 6 months was significantly mediated by the number of strategies used at 3 months. This study adds to what is known about men’s use of weight loss strategies prior to and during a formal weight loss program and will help future program developers create programs that are tailored to men.
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) | 0.003 | 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".