The moderating effect of weight loss intentions on dynamic associations between weight suppression and disordered eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Weight suppression refers to the difference between one's current and highest previous weight in adulthood and has been associated with development of eating pathology. Previous research has been agnostic as to whether reported weight suppression reflects deliberate weight control behavior, and few studies have assessed whether weight loss that occurs unintentionally (e.g., due to illness) is longitudinally associated with eating pathology. METHOD: Undergraduates at a Canadian university (N = 661; 81.4 % female) completed three online surveys over six months. Longitudinal multilevel models examined the interaction of within-person fluctuations in weight suppression and between-person differences in weight loss intentions on binge eating, dietary restriction, and body dissatisfaction. RESULTS: Of participants who reported weight suppression at baseline, 47.6 % indicated that their weight loss was unintentional. Compared to participants endorsing unintentional weight suppression, participants endorsing intentional weight suppression showed greater body dissatisfaction and binge eating across the assessment period (β = 3.64, p ≤ .001 and β = 2.32, p ≤ .001). Significant within-person effects were found only for restriction, indicating that when individuals reported greater weight suppression, they also reported more restrictive eating (β = 0.89, p = .004). Contrary to hypotheses, associations between within-person fluctuations in weight suppression and disordered eating outcomes did not differ by weight loss intentions. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that whether weight suppression is intentional may influence mean levels of disordered eating but may have limited influence on within-person fluctuations in weight suppression and disordered eating severity in a non-clinical sample.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".