MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386861439 · doi:10.1097/mco.0000000000000980

The impact and utility of very low-calorie diets: the role of exercise and protein in preserving skeletal muscle mass

2023· review· en· W4386861439 on OpenAlexaff
Tom A.H. Janssen, Derrick W. Van Every, Stuart M. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLean body massWeight lossMedicineCalorieMuscle massSkeletal muscleVery low calorie dietLow calorie dietObesityBody weightEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Very low-calorie diets (VLCD) are used as a weight loss intervention, but concerns have been raised about their potential negative impact on lean mass. Here, we review the available evidence regarding the effects of VLCD on lean mass and explore their utility and strategies to mitigate reductions in skeletal muscle. RECENT FINDINGS: We observed that VLCD, despite their effects on lean mass, may be suitable in certain populations but have a risk in reducing lean mass. The extent of the reduction in lean mass may depend on various factors, such as the duration and degree of energy deficit of the diet, as well as the individual's starting weight and overall health. SUMMARY: VLCD may be a viable option in certain populations; however, priority needs to be given to resistance exercise training, and secondarily to adequate protein intake should be part of this dietary regime to mitigate losing muscle mass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic CareSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207