Impact of Simulated Caloric Reduction on Nutrient Adequacy Among U.S. Adults with Overweight or Obesity (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES] 2015–2018)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current guidelines for the treatment of obesity recommend dietary restriction to create a caloric deficit, and caloric reductions of 16% to 68% have been achieved in adults with overweight or obesity engaging in intentional weight loss programs. This study models the impact of simulated caloric reduction on nutrient adequacy among U.S. adults ≥19 y with overweight or obesity using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (2015–2018). Four levels of caloric reduction (20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%) were modeled by prorating daily calorie intake such that usual intakes of 14 nutrients were reduced proportional to caloric reduction. The percentages below the estimated average requirement (EAR) or above the adequate intake (AI) were estimated at each level of caloric reduction, with and without dietary supplement use. Differences across percentages of simulated caloric reductions were determined using nonoverlapping confidence intervals of the means (97.5th percentile confidence intervals were used to approximate P < 0.05). There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in percentages below the EAR (above the AI) between sequential levels of simulated caloric reduction for most of the nutrients analyzed (protein, vitamins A, B-6, folate, and C, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and zinc). For example, after a simulated 30% caloric reduction, 25%–40% of the population had intakes below the EAR for protein, vitamin B-6, and zinc, and 75%–91% of the population had intakes below the EAR for vitamin A, calcium, and magnesium (vs. 4%–18% and 45%–56%, respectively, without caloric reduction). With the inclusion of dietary supplements, percentages below the EAR for all nutrients (except protein) were lower than those for food alone. Caloric reduction may exacerbate nutrient inadequacies among adults with overweight or obesity. Inclusion of nutrient-dense foods, fortified foods, specially formulated products, and/or dietary supplements should be considered for those on calorie-restricted diets for long-term weight loss.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".