Relationship Between Weekly Patterns of Caloric Intake and Reported Weight Loss Outcomes: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although millions of overweight and obese adults use mobile phone apps for weight loss, little is known about the predictors of success. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand the relationship between weight loss outcomes and weekly patterns of caloric intake among overweight and obese adults using a mobile phone app for weight loss. METHODS: We examined the relationship between weekly patterns of caloric intake and weight loss outcomes among adults who began using a weight loss app in January 2016 and continued consistent use for at least 5 months (N=7007). Unadjusted and adjusted linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the predictors of percentage of bodyweight lost for women and men separately, including age, body mass index category, weight loss plan, and difference in daily calories consumed on weekend days (Saturday and Sunday) versus Monday. RESULTS: In adjusted linear regression, percentage of bodyweight lost was significantly associated with age (for women), body mass index (for men), weight loss plan, and differences in daily caloric intake on Mondays versus weekend days. Compared with women consuming at least 500 calories more on weekend days than on Mondays, those who consumed 50 to 250 calories more on weekend days or those with balanced consumption (±50 calories) lost 1.64% more and 1.82% more bodyweight, respectively. Women consuming 250 to 500 calories or more than 500 calories more on Mondays than on weekend days lost 1.35% more and 3.58% more bodyweight, respectively. Compared with men consuming at least 500 calories more on weekend days than on Mondays, those consuming 250 to 500 calories or more than 500 calories more on Mondays than on weekend days lost 2.27% and 3.42% less bodyweight, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent caloric intake on weekend days and Mondays or consuming slightly fewer calories per day on Mondays versus weekend days was associated with more successful weight loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03136692; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03136692 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6y9JvHya4).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".