Perceptions of weight and health, weight history, and barriers and motivations for weight loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey indicated that 23.1% of Canadians were obese which is a 35% increase since the Canadian Heart Health Surveys (1986-92). The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions, barriers, and motivators to weight loss to obtain an understanding of why weight loss attempts have been unsuccessful. Individuals ≥ 18 years of age with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 were recruited from the community to participate in a semi-structured telephone interview examining perceptions of weight and health, weight history, and barriers and motivators associated with weight loss. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify common themes. Twenty subjects (mean BMI=31.76±7.23 kg/m2) were interviewed. Based on their own height and weight, 35% misidentified their weight as healthy. Seventy-five percent identified an overweight or obese male figure as healthy, while 65% did this for a female figure. Participants reported that the fundamentals of health included weight (65%), activity (55%), and diet (45%). Subjects attributed their weight to a sedentary lifestyle (50%), snacking (40%), and family habits (25%). Perceived barriers to healthy eating included cost (50%), a lack of time (50%), and comfort eating (45%). Participants found that they did not have enough time for physical activity (35%) or that they experienced pain while being active (20%). Weight loss attempts were inhibited by a lack of motivation (50%), illness (30%), and stress (25%). Subjects felt motivated to eat healthy and be active when they saw results (50%) and started to feel better (35%). This study provides insight into the barriers, motivators and other factors affecting weight loss in an overweight Canadian community. These findings may be helpful in the creation of more successful weight loss strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".