MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dietary Intake and Breastfeeding Practices Differ Between Women Who Gain Versus Lose Muscle Mass from 3 to 9 Months Postpartum

2017· article· en· W4389020877 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah A. Elliott, Leticia C.R. Pereira, Linda J. McCargar, Carla CM Prado, Rhonda C. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicinePregnancyPostpartum periodWeight gainObservational studyObstetricsLogistic regressionDemographyPediatricsInternal medicineBody weightBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Changes in postpartum weight and fat mass have previously been explored while little attention has been given to muscle mass (MM). Higher MM is associated with better indicators of cardio‐metabolic and musculoskeletal health, and factors that may contribute to the gain or loss of MM could help to guide interventions during this dynamic physiological period. This study 1) characterised changes in MM, and 2) examined the contributions of energy intake, physical activity and breastfeeding practices to MM changes from 3 to 9 months postpartum. Methods This was a longitudinal observational study with measurements taken at 3 and 9 months postpartum. Women self‐reported pre‐pregnancy weight and highest weight during pregnancy. MM (via Dual energy x‐ray absorptiometry) and current weight along with information about dietary intake (3‐day food records), physical activity (Baecke questionnaire) and breastfeeding practices (3‐day breastfeeding diary including 1 day of infant test weighing) were measured at each time point. Differences in weight, MM, dietary intake and physical activity from 3 to 9 months postpartum were determined using paired t‐tests. Women were categorized according to whether they gained or lost MM; independent t‐tests were used to examine differences between these two groups. Binary logistic regression was used to examine whether dietary intake, physical activity or breastfeeding practices were associated with MM gain or loss at 9 months postpartum. Results On average, women completing the study (n=49) were 32.9 ± 3.8 years, had a pre‐pregnancy BMI of 25.6 ± 5.2 kg/m 2 and gestational weight gain of 15.4 ± 5.0 kg. Most (88%) breastfed for at least 3 months, and 57% continued breastfeeding until 9 months postpartum. Women experienced significant weight loss over the postpartum period (−10.8 ± 4.5 kg, p <0.001; range −2.7 kg to −22.0 kg). Changes in MM from 3 to 9 months postpartum varied from −2.51 kg to + 2.50 kg with 29 women gaining MM (+1.1 ± 0.7 kg, p< 0.001) and 20 women losing MM (−0.9 ± 0.8 kg, p <0.001). Body weight did not differ between those who gained or lost MM at either time (3 Months: Gained MM = 72.1 ± 15.1 kg, Lost MM = 78.2 ± 16.4 kg, p = 0.193; 9 months: Gained MM = 70.9 ± 16.9 kg, Lost MM = 75.3 ± 16.9 kg, p = 0.377). Energy intake (32 ± 10 kcal/kg vs. 26 ± 8 kcal/kg, p = 0.019) and % kcal from fat at 3 months postpartum was higher in women gained vs. those who lost MM at 9 months postpartum (Gained MM = 34 ± 5 % kcal, Lost MM = 29 ± 4 % kcal, p = 0.002). Women who gained MM reported breastfeeding their infants more frequently (Gained MM = 8 ± 3, Lost MM = 5 ± 1 feeds/day, p = 0.014) and for more time per day (Gained MM = 115 ± 78 mins/day, Lost MM = 59 ± 34 mins/day, p = 0.016) at 9 but not 3 months postpartum. Energy intake (32 ± 10 kcal/kg vs. 28 ± 10 kcal/kg, p = 0.437) and physical activity scores at 9 months postpartum (8.5 ± 1.2 vs. 8.2 ± 1.2, p = 0.390) did not differ between those who gained or lost MM. Energy intake and % kcal from fat at 3 months were significant predictors of MM gain (β [SE] = 0.08 [0.04] and 0.24 [0.09], respectively). Support or Funding Information The ENRICH Project is funded through the Alberta Innovates ‐ Health Solutions (AIHS), Collaborative Research and Innovation Opportunity team grant. Additional funding for this project was provided through the Muttart Diabetes Research and Training Centre as well as the University of Alberta/Faculty of ALES Food and Health Innovation Initiative.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→