Physiological Responses of Post-Dietary Effects: Lessons from Pre-Clinical and Clinical Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dieting regimens such as calorie restriction (CR) are among the most commonly practiced interventions for weight management and metabolic abnormalities. Due to its independence from pharmacological agents and considerable flexibility in regimens, many individuals turn to dieting as a form of mitigation and maintenance of metabolic health. While metabolic benefits of CR have been widely studied, weight loss maintenance and metabolic benefits are reported to be lost overtime when the diet regimen has been terminated-referred to as post-dietary effects. Specifically, due to the challenges of long-term adherence and compliance to dieting, post-dietary repercussions such as body weight regain and loss of metabolic benefits pose as major factors in the efficacy of CR. Intermittent fasting (IF) regimens, which are defined by periodic energy restriction, have been deemed as more flexible, compliant, and easily adapted diet interventions that result in many metabolic benefits which resemble conventional CR diets. Many individuals find that IF regimens are easier to adhere to, resulting in fewer post-dietary effects; therefore, IF may be a more effective intervention. Unfortunately, there is a severe gap in current research regarding IF post-dietary effects. We recognize the importance of understanding the sustainability of dieting; as such, we will review the known physiological responses of CR post-dietary effects and its potential mechanisms through synthesizing lessons from both pre-clinical and clinical studies. This review aims to provide insight from a translational medicine perspective to allow for the development of more practical and effective diet interventions. We suggest more flexible and easily practiced dieting regimens such as IF due to its more adaptable and practical nature.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".