ライフサイエンスコーパス: dinner

1 y 7: after breakfast; day 9: after lunch and dinner).

2 s, such as watching a movie or going out for dinner.

3 ividuals with higher SI at breakfast than at dinner.

4 igher (P < 0.01) at breakfast than lunch and dinner.

5 lower (P < 0.01) at breakfast than lunch and dinner.

6 her (P < 0.01) at breakfast than at lunch or dinner.

7 ction was lower (P < 0.01) at breakfast than dinner.

8 running for your life than running for your dinner.

9 ntrol was less effective after breakfast and dinner.

10 ted lunch and > 4 h later by a self-selected dinner.

11 roblems in adolescents that had fewer family dinners.

12 , 39 women were served breakfast, lunch, and dinner ad libitum.

13 ion, one featured presentation, and an after-dinner address.

14 Dinner and an evening snack were sent home with children

15 gine U100 (3819 patients) once daily between dinner and bedtime in a double-blind, treat-to-target, e

16 preload was consumed, EAH was assessed after dinner and defined as the number of calories consumed fr

17 nergy from main meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) and snacks (before breakfast, after dinner, and

18 orted number of meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) and snacks consumed per day during the second tr

19 dinner) and snacks (before breakfast, after dinner, and after 2000 h), intermeal intervals, time of

20 During lunch, dinner, and an evening snack, subjects were given free a

21 The portion size of 3 entrees (lunch, dinner, and breakfast) and an afternoon snack served dur

22 oss conditions, entrees at breakfast, lunch, dinner, and evening snack were reduced in ED by increasi

23 ic resonance imaging brain scans, ad libitum dinner, and evening snacking.

24 st commercial infant-only vegetables, fruit, dinners, and cereals were low in sodium, contained no sa

25 s were ingested during breakfast, lunch, and dinner at 0700, 1300, and 1900 h in randomized Latin squ

26 ls were ingested during breakfast, lunch, or dinner at 0700, 1300, and 1900 h in randomized Latin squ

27 ffered a series of choice sets about a usual dinner at home and were asked to choose in each choice s

28 Among 334 dinner attendees, 136 (41%) completed the web-based ques

29 adolescents and that the frequency of family dinners attenuate these associations.

30 was greater frequency of eating breakfast or dinner away from home.

31 ss conditions, siblings were served the same dinner, but 25 min before dinner, they either consumed i

32 a main meal at lunch (LM) or a main meal at dinner (DM) for 12 wk while in a weight-loss program.

33 s, faculty, and guests who attended a formal dinner event in April 2013.

34 mineral water, white wine, or red wine with dinner for 2 years.

35 ant reduction in food intake was observed at dinner for both formulations compared with the control f

36 Subjects did not compensate at dinner for this reduction in lunch intake.

37 de used for this work is available at http://dinner-group.uchicago.edu/downloads.html.

38 who infrequently recorded information about dinner had smaller variations than those of other subjec

39 elational, these results suggest that family dinners (ie, family contact and communication) are benef

40 mentioned breakfast, lunch (women only), and dinner in the recall (P </= 0.04).

41 Dinner input frequency was the most important factor for

42 gher energy intake at lunch compared with at dinner may result in favorable changes in weight loss in

43 Typical breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals are difficult to distinguish because skippi

44 0 g at breakfast, 20 g at lunch, and 60 g at dinner; n = 20) or even (30 g each at breakfast, lunch,

45 or even (30 g each at breakfast, lunch, and dinner; n = 21) distribution pattern.

46 Morbidity was associated with eating dinner on 22 September (odds ratio, 8.1; 95% confidence

47 feeding also decreased in response to a late dinner on the first nightshift.

48 epared in a metabolic kitchen; breakfast and dinner on weekdays were eaten on site.

49 of high energy intake at lunch with that at dinner on weight loss and cardiometabolic risk factors i

50 igh energy intakes at lunch compared with at dinner on weight loss in overweight and obese subjects.

51 ns of cyberbullying victimization and family dinners on the rates of mental health and substance use

52 The energy contribution of dinner or its reported time did not differ.

53 After arrival the children ate dinner, played table games or watched television, and we

54 rs, suggesting a thermal version of the life-dinner principle-stronger selection on running for your

55 nd reduced energy expenditure in response to dinner represent contributing mechanisms by which humans

56 ively): a breakfast skipping day (BSD) and a dinner skipping day (DSD) separated by a conventional 3-

57 Intake was measured at lunch, dinner, snack, and breakfast.

58 In this after-dinner speech, a somewhat light-hearted attempt is made

59 Our dinner table is a trophic level we share with the microb

60 re served the same dinner, but 25 min before dinner, they either consumed in full or did not consume

61 (EI) measured at lunch, afternoon snack, and dinner.Thirteen participants completed the 4 infusion da

62 than those of other subjects (betafreq.users dinner*time = 0.007, p-value < 0.001).

63 pancreas (AP) that can be worn at home from dinner to waking up in the morning might be safe and eff

64 randomly assigned to 2 months of AP use from dinner to waking up plus SAP use during the day versus 2

65 That evening, a dinner was given in Dr. Olch's honor, and the entire vis

66 fect was still present when energy intake at dinner was included (P < or = 0.022).

67 er, energy intake--especially at night after dinner--was in excess of energy needed to maintain energ

68 Breakfast and dinner were standard meals.

69 yond the 3 main meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) were associated with increased T2D risk, but the

70 Three meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) were given at 5-hr intervals, beginning either 0

71 itum energy intake was assessed at lunch and dinner with subjective appetite and resting metabolism a