ライフサイエンスコーパス: lunch

1 duced to 71 +/- 19 by 1:00 p.m. (preprandial lunch).

2 ch at 12:30 on the diving boat (no nattou at lunch).

3 r and satiety profiles, or energy intakes at lunch.

4 drank only the soup of enokitake with school lunch.

5 andardized conditions while they were eating lunch.

6 or had symptoms without having eaten the box lunch.

7 duced hunger and subsequent energy intake at lunch.

8 preload (465 g) followed by a self-selection lunch.

9 isolated workplace with a monitored provided lunch.

10 suppressed (P < 0.049) at breakfast than at lunch.

11 administered 160 IU insulin or vehicle after lunch.

12 A liquid meal was consumed at lunch.

13 in, and nonesterified fatty acids peak after lunch.

14 ularly those eligible for free/reduced-price lunches.

15 Fifty-one men and women were served lunch 1 d/wk for 4 wk.

16 our time slots: morning (8:00-11:00), before lunch (11:00-13:00), after lunch (13:00-15:00), and late

17 r 8 h, before and after breakfast (0800) and lunch (1200).

18 00-11:00), before lunch (11:00-13:00), after lunch (13:00-15:00), and late afternoon (15:00-18:00).

19 A tray lunch (1708 kcal) was served at 1230, and energy intakes

20 ncrease was lower after breakfast than after lunch (20 +/- 18% and 42 +/- 40%, respectively; P < 0.04

21 ndex (+54%) and glucose concentrations after lunch (+46%) were, however, higher on the BSD than on th

22 h after breakfast (38 +/- 7%, P < 0.001) and lunch (78 +/- 14%, P < 0.001) than after HF/LC meals (bo

23 students who received free or reduced-price lunches (across interquartile range, OR = 1.13, 95% CI:

24 standing (21.3%), and least prevalent after lunch after 3 minutes of standing (4.9%) (P=.001).

25 nd ad libitum energy intake (EI) measured at lunch, afternoon snack, and dinner.Thirteen participants

26 l), followed 30 min later by a self-selected lunch and > 4 h later by a self-selected dinner.

27 Ad libitum energy intake was assessed at lunch and dinner with subjective appetite and resting me

28 0 min) (day 7: after breakfast; day 9: after lunch and dinner).

29 ndex was higher (P < 0.01) at breakfast than lunch and dinner.

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

31 was measured after they consumed a standard lunch and indicated that they were no longer hungry.

32 articipants received a preload 30 min before lunch and on 1 d no preload was served.

33 een students who obtained free/reduced-price lunches and students who did not obtain school lunches w

34 either a skewed (10 g at breakfast, 20 g at lunch, and 60 g at dinner; n = 20) or even (30 g each at

35 ek for 6 wk, 39 women were served breakfast, lunch, and dinner ad libitum.

36 mixed meals were ingested during breakfast, lunch, and dinner at 0700, 1300, and 1900 h in randomize

37 Typical breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals are difficult to distinguish bec

38 ng of and energy from main meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) and snacks (before breakfast, after d

39 f their reported number of meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) and snacks consumed per day during th

40 l snacks beyond the 3 main meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) were associated with increased T2D ri

41 er; n = 20) or even (30 g each at breakfast, lunch, and dinner; n = 21) distribution pattern.

42 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and school enrollment).

43 6 girls) were served manipulated breakfasts, lunches, and afternoon snacks 2 d/wk for 2 wk.

44 ree patterns, labeled "conventional," "later lunch," and "grazing," were identified.

45 ildren consumed a more-energy-dense (kcal/g) lunch as portion size increased (P < 0.0001).

46 free (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.15) school lunches as compared with those paying full price, and fo

47 at to the dive site, dove twice and then ate lunch at 12:30 on the diving boat (no nattou at lunch).

48 After lunch at 14:30 he dove again (third dive of the day) dur

49 solates from the food handler and those of 8 lunch attendees were indistinguishable.

50 The nutritional quality and cost of lunches brought from home are overlooked and understudie

51 Lunches brought from home compared unfavorably with curr

52 Compared with the NSLP guidelines, lunches brought from home contained more sodium (1110 vs

53 needed to improve the nutritional quality of lunches brought from home.

54 he end of the study (week 12), an ad libitum lunch buffet protocol for objective food intake measures

55 ely handling noise; and the absence of "free lunch." By illuminating such principles, systems biology

56 The consumption of higher energy intake at lunch compared with at dinner may result in favorable ch

57 the relation between high energy intakes at lunch compared with at dinner on weight loss in overweig

58 t hoc, P < 0.05); decreased ad libitum EI at lunch compared with glucose-to-duodenum [-22%, -988 +/-

59 ry potential of peripheral blood cells after lunch.Compared with 3 meals/d, meal skipping increased e

60 children being observed consuming a standard lunch, completing questionnaire measures of parental fee

61 Energy intakes at a buffet lunch consumed immediately after the infusion were quant

62 st meals allocated in random order: water, a lunch containing a modest amount of fat (38 g), or MSF (

63 Nutrient intake estimates for lunch derived from record-assisted 24-hour dietary recal

64 Three meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) were given at 5-hr intervals, beginning e

65 During lunch, dinner, and an evening snack, subjects were given

66 The portion size of 3 entrees (lunch, dinner, and breakfast) and an afternoon snack ser

67 Across conditions, entrees at breakfast, lunch, dinner, and evening snack were reduced in ED by i

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

69 g between the 14995A>T variant and timing of lunch eating for total weight loss (P = 0.035).

70 Independently of observed intake, reported lunch energy intake among females in the intervention sc

71 of nasal drop, itchy eyes, and dyspnea after lunch every two months for 2 years.

72 continue drinking DBs 5 times/wk after their lunch for 24 wk (DB group) while on a weight-loss progra

73 The cost of lunches from home averaged $1.93 for elementary and $1.7

74 About 90% of lunches from home contained desserts, snack chips, and s

75 95 intermediate school students who brought lunches from home.

76 y more (from 38.7% to 31.9%) than in control lunches (from 38.9% to 36.2%)(P<.001).

77 After lunch, if more than 4.5 g alcohol had been drunk the pre

78 l of clarithromycin 500mg with breakfast and lunch, in patients with hypersomnolence syndromes (exclu

79 Lunch included an entree of macaroni and cheese consumed

80 At lunch, including energy from the preload, subjects overa

81 was able to modify the fat content of school lunches, increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

82 t compensate at dinner for this reduction in lunch intake.

83 compared with intake estimates from observed lunch intakes.

84 We propose that eating lunch late impairs the mobilization of fat from adipose

85 5 y] were asked to eat either a main meal at lunch (LM) or a main meal at dinner (DM) for 12 wk while

86 nsecutive meals (breakfast, morning tea, and lunch), matched for macronutrients, fiber, and glycemic

87 e eating time for lunch was earlier, and the lunch meal provided more energy on the no-breakfast day

88 lunch-type foods (>10,000 kcal) and after a lunch meal standardized to provide 50% of the daily esti

89 Energy intakes at the lunch meal were higher on the no-breakfast day (202 kcal

90 For the breakfast and lunch meals combined, mean total zinc intakes were 2.14,

91 No association between eating hot dogs/lunch meats and risk of leukemia was found.

92 of school menus from 3 control schools, the lunch menus averaged from 34% to 40% of energy from fat;

93 e changes in the fat content of food service lunch offerings and the amount of moderate-to-vigorous p

94 soenergetic (1128 kJ) preloads 17 min before lunch on 3 d and no preload on 1 d.

95 A food handler who prepared sandwiches for lunch on 9 March reported that her infant had been sick

96 ors compared the effects of eating a high GL lunch on mood and memory after consumption of a breakfas

97 ldren in a daycare center were served a test lunch once a week for 4 wk (n = 51).

98 tems, where students order and pay for their lunch online, provide an avenue to improve healthy cante

99 to be higher (P < 0.01) at breakfast than at lunch or dinner.

100 ndividual students conducted within 1.5 h of lunch or the following morning included free and prompte

101 mixed meals were ingested during breakfast, lunch, or dinner at 0700, 1300, and 1900 h in randomized

102 -120.19 mg; P < 0.001) contents per student lunch order were significantly lower in the intervention

103 ugar, and sodium contents of primary student lunch orders.A cluster-randomized controlled trial was c

104 ze significantly influenced energy intake at lunch (P < 0.0001).

105 hake significantly affected energy intake at lunch (P < 0.04) such that intake was 12% lower after th

106 hat preload volume affected energy intake at lunch (P < or = 0.009) such that energy intake was less

107 t of breakfast condition on energy intake at lunch (P = 0.36) or throughout the remainder of the day

108 e interaction between state laws and student lunch participant status, ie, whether disparities in wei

109 disparities in weight status between school lunch participants and nonparticipants were smaller in s

110 hat Blacks and Hispanics, free/reduced price lunch participants, English language learners, and girls

111 ience may improve weight status among school lunch participants, particularly those eligible for free

112 Compared with a "conventional" or "later lunch" pattern, men and women with a "grazing" pattern h

113 rred around the start of the school day, the lunch period, or the end of the school day.

114 -2010 in participants in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (S

115 ed and compared with current National School Lunch Program (NSLP) guidelines.

116 y by using criteria from the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

117 SNAP and participants in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, or both have lo

118 f children in the Federally sponsored school lunch program.

119 nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program.

120 ntage of participation in free/reduced-price lunch programs to illustrate the methods.

121 antly decreased Gmax after the meal, but the lunch response is not affected.

122 meal after a fast would lead to an augmented lunch response.

123 but no more than 50 hours after eating a box lunch served the day before the game.

124 ess full, and could consume more food before lunch than on the day when they did eat breakfast (P < 0

125 brought significantly higher-priced ($1.94) lunches than did students from middle-income schools ($1

126 At lunch, the response to the soup preloads was not affecte

127 s showed decreasing SI between breakfast and lunch, the reverse SI pattern was observed in type 1 dia

128 In intervention school lunches, the percentage of energy intake from fat fell s

129 Students were categorized by type of school lunch they usually obtained (free/reduced price, regular

130 umption from a 9835-kcal food array during 2 lunch time meals.

131 Children selected lunch twice from a multiple-item, 9835 kcal, buffet meal

132 r ad libitum access to a very large array of lunch-type foods (>10,000 kcal) and after a lunch meal s

133 Energy intake at lunch was 1209 +/- 125 kJ after the soup compared with 1

134 e rate of attack among those who ate the box lunch was 62 percent.

135 brief videotaped footage of children eating lunch was able to discriminate between the individuals w

136 121 kcal in women), and the reported time of lunch was approximately 35 min earlier.

137 Carolina team before the game, only the box lunch was associated with a significant risk of illness

138 -living American adults, the eating time for lunch was earlier, and the lunch meal provided more ener

139 The main entree at lunch was formulated in 2 versions that varied in energy

140 1994 indicated that salad consumption during lunch was linked with illness on 2 days (5 December: odd

141 Food intake at lunch was lower after the HE than after the LE preloads

142 Ad libitum eating from a buffet lunch was quantified immediately after the infusions.

143 drinks, and energy intake at a buffet-style lunch was quantified.

144 r the infusions, energy intake from a buffet lunch was quantified.

145 diately after the infusion, EI from a buffet lunch was quantified.

146 An ad libitum lunch was served 4 h after the meal.

147 nches and students who did not obtain school lunches was 12.3 percentage points smaller (95% CI, -21.

148 Energy intake (soup+lunch) was significantly greater in the high-fat than in

149 g soup intake and at a subsequent ad libitum lunch were assessed in 26 low-restraint volunteers by us

150 glucose and lipid responses to breakfast and lunch were determined; and 32 participants with impaired

151 lipid infusion and energy intake at a buffet lunch were measured.

152 School lunches were observed to determine what was really eaten

153 d of students qualifying for free or reduced lunches were similar in both areas.

154 nded to partially suppress energy intakes at lunch, whereas the no-beverage and diet beverage conditi

155 On both visits, subjects were also served lunch, which was consumed ad libitum.

156 s), aged 3 to 6 y, were served a series of 6 lunches, which varied only in entree portion size, once

157 s, and the diet intervention was provided as lunch with 38% carbohydrate and diet fibre of 12 g/day f

158 compared the effect of high energy intake at lunch with that at dinner on weight loss and cardiometab

159 short-duration sleepers mentioned breakfast, lunch (women only), and dinner in the recall (P </= 0.04