Impact of a non-restrictive satiating diet on anthropometrics, satiety responsiveness and eating behaviour traits in obese men displaying a high or a low satiety phenotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a non-restrictive satiating diet in men displaying various degrees of satiety efficiency. In all, sixty-nine obese men aged 41·5 (sd 5·7) years were randomly assigned to a control (10-15, 55-60 and 30 % energy as protein, carbohydrate and lipid, respectively; n 34) or satiating (20-25, 45-50 and 30-35 % energy as protein, carbohydrate and lipid, respectively; n 35) diet for 16 weeks, and were classified as having a low (LSP) or high (HSP) satiety phenotype. Both diets were consumed ad libitum. Changes in body weight, BMI, percent fat mass, waist circumference, satiety responsiveness and eating behaviour traits were assessed following the intervention. Dropout rates were higher in the control diet (44·1 %) compared with the satiating diet (8·6 %). Decreases in body weight, BMI and waist circumference were significant in both groups, yet HSP individuals lost more body weight than LSP individuals (P=0·048). Decreases in % fat mass were greater in the satiating diet (LSP: -2·1 (sd 2·1) %; P<0·01 and HSP: -3·0 (sd 2·5) %; P<0·001) compared with the control diet (LSP: -1·1 (sd 2·5) % and HSP: -1·3 (sd 2·6) %) (P=0·034). Satiety responsiveness was markedly improved in the satiating diet, whereas no significant changes were observed in the control group. Changes in dietary restraint (+3·3 (sd 2·9) to +7·2 (sd 5·5)), flexible control (+0·9 (sd 1·4) to +2·3 (sd 2·7)), rigid control (+2·2 (sd 1·5) to +2·5 (sd 2·8)), disinhibition (-2·8 (sd 3·7) to -3·2 (sd 2·6)) and susceptibility to hunger (-2·7 (sd 4·1) to -4·6 (sd 3·9)) were similar between the diets. Compared with the control diet, the satiating diet favoured adherence, decreased % fat mass and improved satiety responsiveness in both HSP and LSP individuals.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".