Lifetime Cognitive Dietary Restraint in Postmenopausal Women: Associations with Weight, Weight Perceptions and Social Physique Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recruited 1071 postmenopausal women (initially aged 45‐75 yr) for a survey on eating attitudes and body image. A follow‐up survey was conducted 3 years later. Among other variables, questionnaires assessed self‐reported height and weight, ‘preferred’ weight (what the individual would like to weigh), cognitive dietary restraint (CDR) and social physique anxiety (SPA; feeling of distress associated with perceived evaluation of one's physical self). To characterize lifetime perceptions of CDR, women were given a description of CDR and responded (yes/no) to each of the following statements: Would you consider yourself to be a restrained eater during a) childhood, b) teen years, c) young adulthood (20 ‐ 35 yr), d) mid‐adulthood (36 ‐ 50 yr), and e) currently? 737 women (69%) provided data at both baseline and follow‐up. CDR scores increased over 3 years (10.7 ± 4.1 vs. 9.9 ± 4.4, p <0.001). Mean body mass index (BMI, kg/m 2 ) was unchanged (24.4 ± 4.0 vs. 24.3 ± 4.0, p=0.44), but 23% lost >2 kg, 51 were within ± 2 kg and 26% gained >2 kg. Baseline CDR was not associated with current BMI (r = 0.06, NS) and did not differ by 3‐yr weight change group. The proportion considering themselves restrained eaters increased over the lifespan: 4% (childhood), 17% (teens), 33% (young adult), 50% (mid‐adult) and 64% (currently). When grouped according to lifetime periods in which they were restrained eaters (0,1,2, > 3), there were no differences in current BMI, ‘preferred’ BMI, or 3‐yr weight change. However, SPA scores increased with more lifetime periods of restrained eating. In summary, CDR increased over the lifespan in women. It was not related to current BMI, preferred BMI or 3‐yr weight change, but was associated with increased SPA. Supported by CIHR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".