Predictors of Food and Physical Activity Tracking Among Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Monitoring food intake and physical activity (PA) using tracking applications may support behavior change. However, few longitudinal studies identify the characteristics of young adults who track their behavior, findings that could be useful in designing tracking-related interventions. Our objective was to identify predictors of past-year food and PA tracking among young adults.Methods:Data were available for 676 young adults participating in the ongoing longitudinal Nicotine Dependence in Teens Study. Potential predictors were measured in 2017–2020 at age 31, and past-year food and PA tracking were measured in 2021–2022 at age 34. Each potential predictor was studied in a separate multivariable logistic regression model controlling for age, sex, and educational attainment.Results:One third (37%) of participants reported past-year PA tracking; 14% reported past-year food, and 10% reported both. Nine and 11 of 41 potential predictors were associated with food and PA tracking, respectively. Compensatory behaviors after overeating, trying to lose weight, self-report overweight, reporting a wide variety of exercise behaviors, and pressure to lose weight predicted both food and PA tracking.Conclusion:Food and PA tracking are relatively common among young adults. If the associations observed herein between compensatory behavior after overeating and tracking (among other observed associations) are replicated and found to be causal, caution may need to be exercised in making “blanket” recommendations to track food intake and/or PA to all young adults seeking behavior change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".