Effect of White Potatoes on Subjective Appetite, Food Intake, and Glycemic Response in Healthy Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of white potato cooking methods on subjective appetite, short-term food intake (FI), and glycemic response in healthy older adults. Using a within-subject, repeated-measures design, 20 participants (age: 70.4 ± 0.6 y) completed, in random order, five treatment conditions: three potato treatments (baked potatoes, mashed potatoes, and French fries), an isocaloric control treatment (white bread), or a fasting condition (meal skipping). Subjective appetite and glycemic response were measured for 120 min using visual analogue scales and capillary blood samples, respectively. Lunch FI was measured with an ad libitum pizza meal at 120 min. Change from baseline subjective appetite (p < 0.001) and lunch FI (p < 0.001) were lower after all test treatments compared with meal skipping (p < 0.001), but did not differ among test treatments. Cumulative FI (test treatment + lunch FI) did not differ among treatment conditions. Blood glucose concentrations were higher after all test treatments compared with meal skipping (p < 0.001), but were not different from each other. In healthy older adults, white potatoes suppressed subjective appetite and lunch FI compared with meal skipping, suggesting white potatoes do not bypass regulatory control mechanisms of FI.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".