0258 Sleep Moderates the Relationship Between Body Fat Percentage and Appetite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Body fat percentage is a known predictor of appetite measures, such as hunger, fullness, desire to eat, and prospective food consumption (PFC). Sleep deprivation has also been associated with changes in these appetite measures. This study examined whether sleep deprivation moderates the relationship between body fat percentage (BF%) and appetite responses (feelings of hunger, fullness, desire to eat, and PFC) following an ad libitum lunch. Methods Eighteen participants (6 females; 23.2±3.8 years; body fat (BF%)=18.8±9.9%) underwent 3 sleep conditions following a randomized crossover design: one habitual sleep night (control), and two sleep deprivation conditions where sleep was shortened during the second half of the night (early wake) or the first half of the night (late bedtime). The next day, measures of appetite were captured via four visual analog scales (immediately following an ad libitum lunch. BF% was measured with Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) at baseline. Four moderation analyses were conducted, with BF% as the predictor, sleep condition (Control, Early wake or Late Bedtime) as a categorical moderator, and post-lunch hunger, fullness, desire to eat, and PFC as dependent variables. Results With desire to eat as the outcome, the model was significant (F[5,48]=3.83, p=.005, R2=.29) with a significant interaction term (b=.51, t(48)=3.33, p=.002). Specifically, there was no relationship between BF% and Desire to eat in the control condition (b=-.18, t(48)=-1.67, p=.10), but the relationship was positive and significant in both the early wake (b=.27, t(48)=2.52, p=.02) and late bedtime (b=.33, t(48)=3.04, p=.004) sleep deprivation conditions. The models for hunger (F[5,48]=.90, p=.49), fullness (F[5,48]=.16, p=.98), and PFC (F[5,48]=.47, p=.80) were not significant. Conclusion These results suggest that post-meal desire to eat is increased in individuals with higher BF% following sleep deprivation, but not following habitual sleep duration. These findings suggest that sleep deprivation may amplify a person’s desire to eat, and that individuals with larger BF% may be at a greater risk. These findings provide further evidence on the role of sleep deprivation in modulating appetite and may, consequently, be a risk factor for greater energy intake in individuals with higher BF% or at greater risk for obesity. Support (if any)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".