CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Eating Disorders and BehaviorsObesity, Physical Activity, DietNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Holiday weight management by successful weight losers and normal weight individuals.

Open access
Phelan, Suzanne, Wing, Rena R., Raynor, Hollie A., Dibello, Julia, Nedeau, Kim, Peng, Wanfeng·2008·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-006x.76.3.442PMC PMC4137466
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study compared weight control strategies during the winter holidays among successful weight losers (SWL) in the National Weight Control Registry and normal weight individuals (NW) with no history of obesity. SWL (n = 178) had lost a mean of 34.9 kg and had kept > or = 13.6 kg off for a mean of 5.9 years. NW (n = 101) had a body mass index of 18.5-24.9 kg/m(2). More SWL than NW reported plans to be extremely strict in maintaining their usual dietary routine (27.3% vs. 0%) and exercise routine (59.1% vs. 14.3%) over the holidays. Main effects for group indicated that SWL maintained greater exercise, greater attention to weight and eating, greater stimulus control, and greater dietary restraint, both before and during the holidays. A Group x Time interaction indicated that, over the holidays, attention to weight and eating declined significantly more in SW than in NW. More SWL (38.9%) than NW (16.7%) gained > or = 1 kg over the holidays, and this effect persisted 1 month later (28.3% and 10.7%, respectively). SWL worked harder than NW did to manage their weight, but they appeared more vulnerable to weight gain during the holidays.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Successful weight losers (SWL) reported more extreme weight-control efforts than normal weight individuals (NW) before and during the winter holidays, yet they were more likely to gain ≥1 kg and less likely to recover that weight one month later. The findings suggest SWL work harder but remain vulnerable to holiday weight gain, especially when attention to weight and eating declines.

Key findings

  • More SWL than NW planned to be extremely strict in maintaining their usual dietary routine over the holidays (27.3% vs. 0%) and exercise routine (59.1% vs. 14.3%).
  • SWL reported greater exercise, attention to weight and eating, stimulus control, and dietary restraint than NW both before and during the holidays; attention to weight and eating declined significantly more in SWL over the holidays (Group × Time, F(1, 254) = 6.9, p = .009).
  • More SWL than NW gained ≥1 kg over the holidays (38.9% vs. 16.7%), and this persisted at 1-month follow-up (28.3% vs. 10.6%).
  • Among those who gained >1 kg, SWL gained more weight than NW (2.3 kg vs. 1.6 kg), and NW had 10.6 times greater odds of recovering to preholiday weight; only 43.5% of SWL recovered vs. 91.7% of NW.

Methods

  • Prospective observational comparison of SWL from the National Weight Control Registry and NW peers, with mailed questionnaires before the holidays (early November), after the holidays (early January), and at 1-month follow-up (early February).
  • SWL (n = 178) had lost a mean of 34.9 kg and kept ≥13.6 kg off for a mean of 5.9 years; NW (n = 101) had BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m². Both groups were 75% female; mean ages were 47.5 vs. 45.5 years.
  • Analyses included ANCOVA/MANOVA for repeated measures with preholiday BMI as a covariate, chi-square tests, logistic regression for recovery from holiday weight gain, and sequential linear regression for predictors of weight regain in SWL.

Limitations

  • The paper states: no dietary intake measurement; some single-item measures were used to reduce participant burden; the preholiday assessment in early November may not have captured holiday onset; and the self-selected sample, including some participants who did not identify a matched normal weight peer, limits generalizability.
  • The paper also states that recovery analyses had small sample sizes and limited power and should be interpreted with caution.
  • Evident from the text: weight was self-reported, and the reliability of the normal weight peer’s weight was not empirically evaluated; among SWL, dropouts were heavier than completers, which may introduce attrition bias.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.76.3.442

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

21 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 33 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Compared with NW, SWL reported engaging in significantly more physical activity both before and after the holidays.

    “Compared with NW, SWL reported engaging in significantly more physical activity both before and after the holidays (see Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    SWL reported greater attention to weight and eating than NW at both preholiday and postholiday assessments.

    “SWL reported greater attention to weight and eating (e.g., daily self-weighing) at both time points.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    SWL's ratings of difficulty controlling weight were in the moderately difficult range, not extremely difficult, at both pre- and postholiday assessments.

    “Notably, although SWL reported greater difficulty in controlling their weight at both the pre- and postholiday assessments, their ratings were in the moderately (and not extremely) difficult range at both time points.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Over the holidays, attention to weight and eating declined significantly more in SWL than in NW.

    “A Group × Time interaction was observed in level of attention to weight and eating, F(1, 254) = 6.9, p= .009; level of attention decreased significantly more for SWL than for NW over the holidays (see Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    More SWL than NW reported plans to be extremely strict in maintaining their usual dietary routine over the holidays (27.3% vs. 0%).

    “More SWL than NW reported plans to be extremely strict in maintaining their usual dietary routine (27.3% vs. 0%) and exercise routine (59.1% vs. 14.3%) over the holidays.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “SWL were more likely to endorse plans to be extremely strict in maintaining their usual dietary routine (27.3% vs. 0%), χ2(4, N = 279) = 90.1, p= .001.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    SWL reported greater difficulty in controlling their weight than NW both before the holidays and during the holidays.

    “Despite greater attention to weight and eating and to stimulus control behaviors, SWL reported greater difficulty in controlling their weight both before the holidays (M = 2.6, SD = 1.2, vs. M = 1.6, SD = 0.9) and during the holidays (M = 3.1, SD = 1.3, vs. M = 2.1, SD = 1.0), F(1, 254) = 33.4, p = .0001.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    SWL reported greater practice of weight control behaviors (total EBI scores) than NW, including greater stimulus control techniques.

    “SWL also reported greater practice of weight control behaviors (as reflected in total EBI scores), including stimulus control techniques (e.g., eating at one place in the home).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Method

    SWL were significantly heavier and had a higher BMI than NW at the start of the study.

    “SWL were significantly heavier than were NW (M = 74.2 kg, SD = 24.1, vs. M = 62.1 kg, SD = 9.9), t(277) = 23.4, p= .0001, and had a higher BMI at the start of the study (M = 25.5 kg/m2, SD = 6.4, vs. M = 21.8 kg/m2, SD = 1.9), t(277) =3.7, p= .0001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    SWL in this study had lost a mean of 34.9 kg and had kept at least 13.6 kg off for a mean of 5.9 years.

    “SWL (n = 178) had lost a mean of 34.9 kg and had kept ≥13.6 kg off for a mean of 5.9 years.”
    • Also stated in: § Method · plain
      “They had lost an average of 34.9 kg (SD = 16.5) and had kept off at least 13.6 kg (30 lbs) for an average of 5.9 years (SD = 6.8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    18.2% of SWL versus 0% of NW reported having lost weight to provide a safety net in case they gained weight during the holidays; this difference was not statistically significant.

    “Although this result is not statistically significant, χ2(1, N = 279)= .19, p= .65, 18.2% of SWL versus 0% of NW reported having lost the weight to provide a safety net in case they gained weight during the holidays.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Method

    Among SWL who agreed to participate, 57% were able to find a normal weight peer to participate with them.

    “Fifty-seven percent of SWL who agreed to participate in the study were able to find a normal weight peer to participate with them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    SWL reported greater use of stimulus control techniques than NW, both preholiday and postholiday.

    “EBI: Stimulus Control Pre 17.25 ± 4.479 15.25 ± 4.801 F = 13.6, p < .0001* F = .33, p = .56 F = 2.8, p = .09 Techniques Post 17.07 ± 4.273 14.53 ± 4.883”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    SWL reported greater difficulty in controlling their weight than NW, although their perceived level of difficulty was moderate and not extreme.

    “They also reported greater difficulty in controlling their weight, although their perceived level of difficulty was moderate and not extreme.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Over the holidays, more SWL than NW gained >1 kg and fewer SWL remained weight stable (±1 kg).

    “over the holidays, more SWL than NW gained weight (38.9% vs. 16.7%) and fewer remained weight stable (±1 kg; 51.2 % vs. 74.4%), χ2(2, N = 256) = 14.8, p = .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Mean holiday weight gain was 0.7 kg in SWL and 0.2 kg in NW.

    “Holiday weight gains were relatively minor in both SWL and NW (0.7 and 0.2 kg, respectively)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    SWL maintained their frequency of lunch consumption over the holidays, whereas NW marginally decreased this frequency.

    “SWL maintained their frequency of lunch consumption (M = 6.3 days/week), whereas NW marginally decreased this frequency over the holidays (from M = 6.2 to M = 5.9 days/week); Group × Time, F(1, 254) = 4.7, p= .03.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    SWL had higher total Eating Behavior Inventory (EBI) scores than NW, both preholiday and postholiday.

    “EBI (total) Pre 89.5 3 10.8 80.2 ± 11.0 F = 40.6, p < .0001* F = 1.2, p = .28 F = .03, p = .83 Post 86.3 ± 11.4 77.9 ± 11.7”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    43.5% of SWL who gained weight during the holidays recovered, whereas 91.7% of NW who gained weight recovered.

    “Of the 62 SWL who gained weight during the holidays, only 27 (43.5%) recovered, whereas of the 12 NW who gained weight over the holidays, 11 (91.7%) recovered.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    From preholiday to 1-month follow-up, more SWL than NW gained weight and fewer SWL remained weight stable.

    “A similar pattern emerged when we examined categories of weight change overall, from preholiday to the 1-month follow-up; 28.3% of SWL gained weight compared with 10.6% of NW, and 59.6% of SWL remained weight stable compared with 81.2% of NW, χ2(2, N = 251) = 12.6, p = .002”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    In Yanovski et al. (2000), the risk of gaining at least 2.3 kg over the holidays was lowest in normal weight individuals, moderate in overweight individuals, and greatest in obese individuals.

    “However, the risk of gaining at least 2.3 kg over the holidays was lowest in individuals of normal weight, moderate in overweight individuals, and greatest in obese individuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yanovski et al. (2000)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    In Andersson and Rossner (1992), the variation in weight change in reduced-obese patients was far greater than in controls, ranging from a gain of 6.1 kg to a weight loss of 8.8 kg.

    “Both groups gained an average of 0.5 kg over the holidays; however, the variation in weight change in the reduced-obese patients was far greater and ranged from a gain of 6.1 kg to a weight loss of 8.8 kg.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Andersson and Rossner (1992)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Method

    SWL and NW were similar with respect to age and gender.

    “The SWL (n = 178) and NW (n = 101) were similar with respect to age (M = 47.5 years, SD = 11.5, vs. M = 45.5 years, SD = 13.9, respectively) and gender (75% female, both groups);”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Yanovski et al. (2000) reported a small mean weight gain of 0.37 kg over the holidays in a convenience sample of 195 adults.

    “Yanovski et al. (2000) reported a small mean weight gain of 0.37 kg over the holidays in a convenience sample of 195 adults.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yanovski et al. (2000)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Overweight and obese individuals and those who have lost weight may be more susceptible to holiday weight gain.

    “Thus, overweight and obese individuals and those individuals who have lost weight may be more susceptible to this high-risk period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Yanovski et al. (2000)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Andersson and Rossner (1992)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Method

    The NWCR is an ongoing longitudinal study evaluating the behaviors of over 5,000 adults (≥18 years) who have lost a minimum of 13.6 kg and have kept it off for at least 1 year.

    “The NWCR is an ongoing longitudinal study evaluating the behaviors of over 5,000 adults (≥18 years) who have lost a minimum of 13.6 kg and have kept it off for at least 1 year (Klem, Wing, McGuire, Seagle, & Hill, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Klem, Wing, McGuire, Seagle, & Hill, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Method

    Analyses using a matched-pair design yielded similar findings to the main analyses.

    “However, analyses we conducted using matched-pair design yielded similar findings (data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Method

    Subsequent analyses controlled for difference in BMI between SWL and NW.

    “Therefore, subsequent analyses controlled for difference in BMI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Method

    In a previous factor analysis of obese individuals, two Eating Inventory questions loaded highest on the Restraint and Disinhibition subscales.

    “In a previous analysis of obese individuals (data not shown; Phelan & Wing, 2003), we conducted a factor analysis of the Eating Inventory and identified two questions that loaded the highest on the Restraint and Disinhibition subscales.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Phelan & Wing, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Method

    The Eating Behavior Inventory (EBI) has adequate internal validity and consistency.

    “The EBI has been shown to have adequate internal validity and consistency (O’Neil et al., 1979).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O’Neil et al., 1979

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Chi-square analyses revealed no significant differences in gender or ethnicity/race in dropouts versus completers.

    “Chi-square analyses revealed no significant differences in gender or ethnicity/race in dropouts versus completers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Previous research in a general population has found that weight gained over the winter holidays was not lost during the rest of the year.

    “Previous research in a general population has found that weight gained over the winter holidays was not lost during the rest of the year (Yanovski et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yanovski et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Method

    Post hoc, with a pooled SD of 1.4 kg weight gain, the study had >80% power to detect a difference of 0.5 kg between groups.

    “In a post hoc sample size calculation, using a pooled standard deviation estimate of 1.4 kg weight gain from pre- to postholiday, we had >80% power to detect a difference of 0.5 kg between groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Due to small sample sizes and limited power, the recovery analyses should be interpreted with caution.

    “Due to small sample sizes and limited power, these analyses should be interpreted with caution.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Successful self-regulation involves monitoring one's behavior in relation to a goal or standard and changing or maintaining the behavior to maintain a desired effect.

    “Successful self-regulation involves monitoring one’s behavior in relation to a goal or standard and changing or maintaining the behavior to maintain a desired effect (Kanfer, 1975).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kanfer, 1975

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    This reduction in awareness may have left some SWL vulnerable to weight regain and less able to recover.

    “this reduction in awareness may have left some SWL vulnerable to weight regain and less able to recover.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    A total of 90 NW (89.1%) and 167 SWL (93.8%) completed the postholiday assessment, and 85 NW (84.2%) and 167 SWL (93.8%) were available for the 1-month follow-up.

    “A total of 90 NW (89.1%) and 167 SWL (93.8%) completed the postholiday assessment, and 85 NW (84.2%) and 167 SWL (93.8%) were available for the 1-month follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Self-monitoring increases awareness of behaviors and allows the individual to catch "lapses" in weight quickly and to adjust behaviors accordingly to prevent larger weight "relapses".

    “Self-monitoring increases awareness of behaviors and allows the individual to catch “lapses” in weight quickly and to adjust behaviors accordingly to prevent larger weight “relapses” (Kirschenbaum, 2005; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kirschenbaum, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Marlatt & Gordon, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Self-regulation theory posits that people will be less effective at self-regulation when they confront circumstances that are unusually demanding and that deplete resources they need to perform necessary behaviors.

    “Self-regulation theory also posits that people will be less effective at self-regulation when they confront circumstances that are unusually demanding and that deplete resources they need to perform necessary behaviors (Baumeister et al., 1994).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Baumeister et al., 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Method

    The Paffenbarger Activity Questionnaire has high test-retest reliability and is significantly correlated with measures of cardiovascular fitness.

    “The Paffenberger Activity Questionnaire has been shown to have a high test–retest reliability (Paffenbarger et al., 1978; Washburn, Smith, Goldfield, & Mc-Kinlay, 1991) and to be significantly correlated with measures of cardiovascular fitness (Siconolfi, Lasater, Snow, & Carleton, 1985).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Paffenbarger et al., 1978

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Washburn, Smith, Goldfield, & Mc-Kinlay, 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Siconolfi, Lasater, Snow, & Carleton, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Method

    Collinearity statistics indicated adequate independence among variables in the regression.

    “Collinearity statistics (tolerance and variance-inflation factor) were examined; they indicated adequate independence among variables in the regression.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Their greater efforts may ultimately serve to buffer against larger weight relapses and may allow most SWL to succeed at keeping weight off in the long term.

    “Their greater efforts, however, may ultimately serve to buffer against larger weight relapses and may allow most SWL to succeed at keeping weight off in the long term.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Despite their efforts, SWL continue to report difficulties in managing their weight and monitoring their food intake and appear vulnerable to weight gain during this high-risk time.

    “Despite their efforts, they continue to report difficulties in managing their weight and monitoring their food intake and appear vulnerable to weight gain during this high-risk time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    The generalizability of the study may be limited, as it used a self-selected sample and some participants chose not to identify a "matched" normal weight peer.

    “Moreover, the generalizability of the study may be limited, as it used a self-selected sample and some participants chose not to identify a “matched” normal weight peer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    Because the preholiday assessment occurred in early November, it may not have captured preholiday conditions.

    “Because the preholi-day assessment occurred in early November, it may not have captured preholiday conditions, as some patients reported that the holidays began during Halloween.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    The study was limited by lack of measurement of dietary intake and use of some single-item measures.

    “The study was limited, however, by lack of measurement of dietary intake and use of some single-item measures, which were designed to reduce participant burden.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
40 of 40

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Normal weight peers' self-reported weight is sufficiently reliable and valid to measure weight change.

    “the reliability of the normal weight peer’s weight has not been empirically evaluated.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The winter holiday season is a period of high risk for weight control because high-calorie foods and sedentary activities abound.

    “The holiday season poses significant challenges to weight control and eating regulation. It is a time when high-calorie foods and sedentary activities abound.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Maintaining weight control behaviors in the face of competing demands requires significant effort.

    “However, maintaining such behaviors in the face of competing demands requires significant effort.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The winter holiday season provides a unique setting for studying self-regulation disruption.

    “The winter holiday season provides a unique setting for studying self-regulation disruption.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t(277) =3.7, p = .0001

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .0001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p < .001 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

  • Inconsistent p-value: χ2(1, N = 279)= .19, p = .65

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .65 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .663. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .65 · recomputed p = .663

  • Inconsistent p-value: χ2(3, N = 279) = 24.2, p = .006

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .006 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p < .001. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .006 · recomputed p < .001

3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(277) = 3.7reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(277) =3.7, p = .0001”

  • Doesn’t add upχ²(3) = 24.2reported p = .006 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(3, N = 279) = 24.2, p = .006”

  • Doesn’t add upχ²(1) = 0.19reported p = .65 · recomputed p = .663

    “χ2(1, N = 279)= .19, p = .65”

  • Consistentt(277) = 23.4reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(277) = 23.4, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • Consistentχ²(4) = 90.1reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(4, N = 279) = 90.1, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • Consistentχ²(4) = 55.5reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(4, N = 279) = 55.5, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(1, 254) = 6.9reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .009

    “F(1, 254) = 6.9, p = .009”

  • ConsistentF(1, 254) = 33.4reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 254) = 33.4, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 24.6reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(2, N = 279) = 24.6, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 22.4reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(2, N = 254) = 22.4, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(1, 254) = 7.8reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(1, 254) = 7.8, p = .006”

  • ConsistentF(1, 254) = 4.7reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .031

    “F(1, 254) = 4.7, p = .03”

  • Consistentχ²(3) = 13.4reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “χ2(3, N = 279) = 13.4, p = .004”

  • Consistentχ²(3) = 5.9reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .117

    “χ2(3, N = 254) = 5.9, p = .11”

  • ConsistentF(6, 164224) = 34.2reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(6, 164224) = 34.2, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 14.8reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(2, N = 256) = 14.8, p = .001”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 12.6reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “χ2(2, N = 251) = 12.6, p = .002”

  • Consistentt(74) = 2.5reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .015

    “t(74)= 2.5, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(11, 137) = 4.1reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(11, 137) = 4.1, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • Consistentt(160) = -2.9reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .004

    “t(160) = −2.9, p = .005”

  • Consistentt(160) = 4.4reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(160) = 4.4, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

21 of 21

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Attention-to-weight interaction is called significant despite missing the stated cutoff

    Major

    The paper calls the Group × Time interaction significant at p = .009, but its stated Bonferroni cutoff for these behavioral analyses is p < .008.

  • SWL attrition comparison has incompatible t-test degrees of freedom

    Minor

    Of the original 178 SWL, 167 completed the postholiday assessment, leaving 11 noncompleters. An independent t test comparing those groups would have 176 degrees of freedom, not the reported 177.

  • Weight-gain comparison has incompatible t-test degrees of freedom

    Minor

    The comparison names 62 SWL and 12 NW, or 74 participants. An independent two-group t test on those participants would have at most 72 degrees of freedom, not the reported 74.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Baskin M, Ard J, Franklin F, Allison D. Prevalence of obesity in the United States. Obesity Reviews. 2005;6(1):5–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00165.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  2. Kirschenbaum DS. The healthy obsession program: Smart weight loss instead of low carb lunacy. Dallas, TX: Benbella Books; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  3. Marlatt GA, Gordon JR. Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in addictive behavior change. New York: Guilford; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  4. Phelan S, Wing RR. Factor analysis of Eating Inventory in obese individuals. 2003. Unpublished raw data. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Phelan, S., Wing, R. R., Raynor, H. A., Dibello, J., Nedeau, K., & Peng, W.
Affiliations
  • Providence College (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • Miriam Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Phelan, Suzanne
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
442-448
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
DOI
10.1037/0022-006x.76.3.442
PMC
PMC4137466
OpenAlex
W2163193764
Semantic Scholar
3c5e889fbecec8c8391756c6fb144e30761c5771
Cited by
50
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DigitalCommons - CalPoly (California State Polytechnic University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK066787)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
holiday weight gain, weight control strategies, stimulus control, dietary restraint, exercise maintenance, weight maintenance, obesity prevention, winter holidays
MeSH terms
Body Weight, Holidays, Humans, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Obesity, Psychology, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reference Values, Registries, Weight Gain, Weight Loss, Body Mass Index

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review