The Seasonal Periodicity of Healthy Contemplations About Exercise and Weight Loss: Ecological Correlational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lack of physical activity and weight gain are two of the biggest drivers of health care costs in the United States. Healthy contemplations are required before any changes in behavior, and a recent study has shown that they have underlying periodicities. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine seasonal variations in state-by-state interest in both weight loss and increasing physical activity, and how these variations were associated with geographic latitude using Google Trends search data for the United States. Methods: Internet search query data were obtained from Google Trends (2004-2016). Time series analysis (every 2 weeks) was performed to determine search volume (normalized to overall search intensity). Seasonality was determined both by the difference in search volumes between winter (December, January, and February) and summer (June, July, and August) months and by the amplitude of cosinor analysis. Results: Exercise-related searches were highest during the winter months, whereas weight loss contemplations showed a biphasic pattern (peaking in the summer and winter months). The magnitude of the seasonal difference increased with increasing latitude for both exercise (R2=.45, F1,49=40.09, beta=−.671, standard deviation [SD]=0.106, P<.001) and weight loss (R2=.24, F1,49=15.79, beta=−.494, SD=0.124, P<.001) searches. Conclusions: Healthy contemplations follow specific seasonal patterns, with the highest contemplations surrounding exercise during the winter months, and weight loss contemplations peaking during both winter and summer seasons. Knowledge of seasonal variations in passive contemplations may potentially allow for more efficient use of public health campaign resources.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".