Examination of a partial dietary self‐monitoring approach for behavioral weight management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Introduction Dietary self‐monitoring in behavioral weight loss programmes traditionally involves keeping track of all foods and beverages to achieve a calorie deficit. While effective, adherence declines over time. WW™ (formerly Weight Watchers), a widely available commercial weight management programme, sought to pilot an approach that permitted participants to consume over 200 foods without monitoring them. Methods The current study used a pre‐post evaluation design with anthropometric, psychosocial and physical health assessments at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Results Participants (N = 152) were, on average, 48.4 (±12.3) years old, with body mass index (BMI) of 32.8 (±4.8) m/kg2 and 94% female. Mean weight loss was 6.97 + 5.55 kg or 7.9 ± 6.1% of initial body weight (ps < .0001) at 6 months. One third (32.6%) of the sample lost 10% or more of initial body weight. Significant improvements in hunger, cravings, happiness, sleep, quality of life, aerobic stamina, flexibility and blood pressure were observed. Attendance at group meetings, as well as decreases in hunger, and fast food cravings from baseline to 3 months were associated with achieving 10% weight loss at 6 months (p < .01). Conclusions Using an approach that does not require self‐monitoring of all foods and beverages produced significant weight losses and other physical and psychosocial improvements.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".