Effects of the HEARTY exercise randomized controlled trial on eating behaviors in adolescents with obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are well-recognized benefits of behavioral interventions that include exercise for children and adolescents with obesity. However, such behavioral weight management programs may precipitate unintended consequences. It is unclear if different exercise modalities impact eating behaviors differently in youth with obesity. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of aerobic, resistance, and combined aerobic and resistance exercise training on eating attitudes and behaviors (uncontrolled eating, restrained eating, emotional eating, external eating and food craving) among adolescents with overweight and obesity. Methods: . The Food Craving Inventory (food cravings), Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (restrained eating, emotional eating, external eating), and the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (uncontrolled eating) were used to assess eating attitudes and behaviors. Results: All exercise groups showed within-group decreases in external eating and food cravings. Participants randomized to the Combined training group and were more adherent showed the greatest improvements in eating behaviors and cravings. Conclusions: A 6-month exercise intervention produced improvements in disordered eating behaviors and food cravings, but effects may be gender and modality-specific. Findings highlight the need to tailor exercise intervention to participant characteristics for the promotion of healthier eating and weight management outcomes in youth with obesity. Clinical Trial Registration # and Date: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT00195858, September 12, 2005.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".