Diet composition and energy intake in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Absolute energy from fats and carbohydrates and the proportion of carbohydrates in the food supply have increased over 50 years. Dietary energy density (ED) is primarily decreased by the water and increased by the fat content of foods. Protein, carbohydrates and fat exert different effects on satiety or energy intake (EI) in the order protein > carbohydrates > fat. When the ED of different foods is equalized the differences between fat and carbohydrates are modest. Covertly increasing dietary ED with fat, carbohydrate or mixed macronutrients elevates EI, producing weight gain and vice versa. In more naturalistic situations where learning cues are intact, there appears to be greater compensation for the different ED of foods. There is considerable individual variability in response. Macronutrient-specific negative feedback models of EI regulation have limited capacity to explain how availability of cheap, highly palatable, readily assimilated, energy-dense foods lead to obesity in modern environments. Neuropsychological constructs including food reward (liking, wanting and learning), reactive and reflective decision making, in the context of asymmetric energy balance regulation, give more comprehensive explanations of how environmental superabundance of foods containing mixtures of readily assimilated fats and carbohydrates and caloric beverages elevate EI through combined hedonic, affective, cognitive and physiological mechanisms. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".