Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(3)
Participants also provided self-reported weight and monthly snacking frequency at pre-intervention screening, and one month and six months after completing the study.
Interestingly, there were similar significant decreases in monthly snacking frequency at follow-up relative to screening in both groups, suggesting that monthly FFQs may be a more sensitive outcome variable than daily FFQs.
Neither group showed a significant reduction in daily snacking (summed over the four no-go foods) from the baseline week to the intervention week but both groups showed reductions in monthly snacking frequency from screening to the one-month and six-month follow-up (supplementary table 1).
Similar(57)
Participants who were primed with impulsivity and those high in Negative Urgency showed a greater reduction in snacking frequency after being given information about the immediate vs. long-term health benefits of snacking.
Snacking frequency was calculated as the frequency of food-only snacks that the participant reported.
There were no changes in self-reported daily snacking frequency.
Women reported higher snacking frequency than men (Table 1).
We did not include drink-only snacks when estimating snacking frequency, as we considered snacking on foods and drinks to have different satiating effects; however, the analyses were adjusted for drink-only snack frequency.
Second, there is ambiguity in the terminology as snacking frequency has not been distinguished from consumption of snack foods.
Changes in snacking frequency were analysed in separate 2 × 2 ANOVAs from baseline to week 2, screening to one-month, and screening to six-months due to the different (smaller) samples at follow-up, and because monthly rather than daily FFQs were used.
Snacking frequency has been associated cross-sectionally with increases in both 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' food choices, and different dietary patterns have been identified within high-frequency snacking groups.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com