A modified carbohydrate diet, including uniquely formulated meal and snack products, resulted in greater early weight loss and similar appetite ratings compared to a reduced calorie diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modified carbohydrate diets, such as South Beach Diet TM (SBD) may be advantageous for obesity treatment. A multi‐center parallel study examined the effect of SBD, including commercial SBD products, on weight loss & satiety compared to Reduced Calorie Diet (RCD). Overweight & obese women (n= 240) were randomized to follow SBD, SBD + SBD Products (SBDP), RCD, or RCD + SBD Products (RCDP) for 24 wks. SBDP & RCDP consumed 1‐2 SBD snacks & 1‐2 SBD meals/day along with their respective assigned diet. On four occasions food records & hourly electronic appetite questionnaires were completed on 3 non‐consecutive days. All groups lost significant weight compared to baseline. SBD groups had greater weight loss at wk 2 (SBD ‐3.84 ± 3.92 lbs, SBDP ‐5.16 ±3.55 lbs; p<0.01) than those following RCD (RCD ‐2.70 ± 3.40 lbs, RCDP ‐3.40 ± 3.55 lbs). There was an effect (p<0.05) of product at wk 2. There was a trend (p=0.07) for the diet effect to persist at 12 wks. All had significant reductions in total fat mass from baseline to 24 wks, with SBD groups having the greatest reduction (p<0.05). SBD groups consumed significantly more protein, & tended to consume fewer calories (p=0.098) than CR groups at wk 2. Despite differences in nutrient intake, all groups reported similar overall appetite scores. These results indicate that SBD provides a viable weight loss strategy & the early weight loss differences may increase motivation (Supported by Kraft Foods).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".