A pilot study of a single-session training to promote mindful eating.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although researchers have not yet examined the applicability of mindfulness for weight-gain prevention, mindfulness training has the potential to increase an individual's awareness of factors that enable an individual to avoid weight gain caused by overconsumption. OBJECTIVE: The study intended to examine the effects of 1 h of mindfulness training on state mindfulness and food consumption. METHODS: The research team performed a pilot study. SETTING: The study occurred at an urban, northeastern, Catholic university. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 26 undergraduate, English-speaking students who were at least 18 y old (77% female, 73% Caucasian). Students with food allergies, an inability to fast, or a current or past diagnosis of an eating disorder were ineligible. INTERVENTION: Participants fasted for 4 h. Between the third and fourth hours, they attended a 1-h session of mindfulness training that integrated three experiential mindfulness exercises with group discussion. Following training, they applied the skills they learned during a silent lunch. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS), the Awareness subscale of the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS-AW), and a modified version of the Acting with Awareness subscale of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-AW) were used preand posttraining to assess changes in state mindfulness, present-moment awareness, and mealtime awareness, respectively. A postmeal, subjective hunger/fullness Likert scale was used to assess food consumption (healthy vs unhealthy consumption). RESULTS: The study found a statistically significant increase in state mindfulness (P=.002). Eighty-six percent of participants engaged in healthy food consumption. No statistically significant changes occurred in either present-moment awareness (P=.617) or mealtime awareness (P=.483). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results suggest promising benefits for use of mindfulness training on weight-gain prevention in healthy individuals. More research is needed to understand the impact that mindfulness may have on long-term, weight-gain prevention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".