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 administered 160 IU insulin or vehicle after lunch.

4 A liquid meal was consumed at lunch.

5 in, and nonesterified fatty acids peak after lunch.

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

7 andardized conditions while they were eating lunch.

8 or had symptoms without having eaten the box lunch.

9 duced hunger and subsequent energy intake at lunch.

10 l and dyspnea during physical exercise after lunch.

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

12 after consuming canned peaches during school lunch.

13 were taken as oral suspensions in water with lunch.

14 chool children have a high intake of UPFs at lunch.

15 % of students receiving free or reduced-cost lunch.

16 ing to consume a large or small hypothetical lunch.

17 lysed as a percentage of the total weight of lunch.

18 espective of protein intake at breakfast and lunch.

19 drank only the soup of enokitake with school lunch.

20 isolated workplace with a monitored provided lunch.

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

22 d are eligible for free/reduced-price school lunches.

23 nd staff dealing with food allergy in school lunches.

24 e control arm included monthly 1-hour social lunches.

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

26 bohydrate and fat ["blend index" difference; lunch = 0.22 (95% CI: 0.19, 0.26), P< 0.0001, d = 0.76;

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

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

29 Ad libitum EI was recorded at the lunch (12:00 h) and afternoon snack (14:00 h), with bloo

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

31 00-11:00), before lunch (11:00-13:00), after lunch (13:00-15:00), and late afternoon (15:00-18:00).

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

33 interval {CI}, 12.7%-33.3%]), staff meetings/lunches (18.2% [95% CI, 4.5%-31.8%]), and elementary sch

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

35 CEP was associated with increased lunch (3 studies; moderate certainty) and breakfast (1 s

36 zed in an EVEN (16.7% at breakfast, 32.8% at lunch, 31.3% at dinner, 19.2% at snacks; N.=23) or UNEVE

37 zed in an EVEN (16.7% at breakfast, 32.8% at lunch, 31.3% at dinner, 19.2% at snacks; N.=23) or UNEVE

38 =23) or UNEVEN (15.4% at breakfast, 36.6% at lunch, 34.9% at dinner, 12.4% at snacks; N.=24) distribu

39 =23) or UNEVEN (15.4% at breakfast, 36.6% at lunch, 34.9% at dinner, 12.4% at snacks; N.=24) distribu

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

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

42 .5%) and eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch (84.6%).

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

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

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

46 re collected 2 h after breakfast (AB), after lunch (AL), and after dinner (AD) on day 3, and a fastin

47 d with better changes in dietary quality for lunch among presumed low-income, low-middle-income, and

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

49 5 g MCT before breakfast and 10 g WPI before lunch and dinner (MCT + WPI).

50 , 15 g MCT before breakfast and water before lunch and dinner (MCT), or 15 g MCT before breakfast and

51 enomenon was also seen for protein intake at lunch and dinner but not at breakfast.

52 ow ALMBMI reported a lower protein intake at lunch and dinner compared with those with normal ALMBMI

53 , 15% of energy from protein), with the same lunch and dinner provided.

54 hich reflects enhanced human activity during lunch and dinner time (i.e., cooking) and possibly more

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

56 0 min) (day 7: after breakfast; day 9: after lunch and dinner).

57 en during the late postprandial period after lunch and dinner, with differences of up to 4.6 (95% CI,

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

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

60 randial glucose elevations, especially after lunch and dinner.

61 size, eating rate, and energy intake during lunch and in an eating in the absence of hunger task.

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

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

64 ith peak values observed at 70 minutes after lunches and dinners and 50 minutes after breakfasts.

65 ponses were greater and more prolonged after lunches and dinners than after breakfasts, with peak val

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

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

68 either water before standardized breakfast, lunch, and dinner (CONTROL), 15 g MCT before breakfast a

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

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

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

72 during a simulated day (including breakfast, lunch, and dinner preparation interspersed by cleaning a

73 ucose response over 3 hours after breakfast, lunch, and dinner was assessed using continuous glucose

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

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

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

77 separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods an

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

79 ade, enrolled in a school that served school lunch, and had a reliable weekday dietary recall were in

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

81 6 girls) were served manipulated breakfasts, lunches, and afternoon snacks 2 d/wk for 2 wk.

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

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

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

85 rus fruits are frequently included in school lunches as fruit flesh and as flavoring or seasoning in

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

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

88 al esophageal bolus obstruction while eating lunch at the local hospital.

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

90 ses in report similarity were observed after lunch breaks (day and weekend shifts) and with the arriv

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

92 Lunches brought from home compared unfavorably with curr

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

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

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

96 ropic polypeptide secretion were lower after lunch but unaltered after breakfast on CRHP; beta-cell f

97 reduced on the CRHP diet after breakfast and lunch by 11% and 31% compared with the CR diet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

104 A 20-minute or 10-minute seated lunch condition was randomly assigned to each day within

105 67 to -22.32 mg) during the 20-minute seated lunch condition.

106 chool-age children during a 20-minute seated lunch condition.

107 r between the 10-minute and 20-minute seated lunch conditions.

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

109 9.3%; previous studies suggested that school lunch consumption was associated with increased obesity.

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

111 ll, income was inversely associated with UPF lunch content.

112 oval strategy should be considered in school lunches depending on each case of GRP allergy.

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

114 Meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) and respective snacking episodes had the

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

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

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

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

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

120 10) protein each day (25 g at breakfast and lunch) during the supplemental phase (days 8-15).

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

122 ict, and 41.3% (20.2%) of students with free lunch eligibility.

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

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

125 x (less balanced) than ultraprocessed meals [lunch, F(1, 19) = 18.49, P < 0.0004, partial eta(2) = 0.

126 ontent by meal type (school meals and packed lunches [food from home]) and children's household incom

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

128 iscomfort upon ingesting Egoma during school lunch for the first time.

129 d with a lower median UPF intake than packed lunches for primary school children (61% kcal [IQR 44-75

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

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

132 95 intermediate school students who brought lunches from home.

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

134 d with eating normal meals for breakfast and lunch) glucagon concentrations were lower by 42% and end

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

136 etite ratings were lower after breakfast and lunch in MCT + WPI (P = 0.001).

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

138 Lunch included an entree of macaroni and cheese consumed

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

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

141 whether differences in energy intake during lunch influenced postmeal feelings of satiety and later

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

143 s (0.40 g/min; 0.21, 0.59 g/min), and larger lunch intakes (7.05 kcal; 3.37, 10.74 kcal).

144 compared with intake estimates from observed lunch intakes.

145 5 kg/m2) were studied during breakfast (B), lunch (L), and dinner (D) with identical mixed meals (75

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

147 5 y] were asked to eat either a main meal at lunch (LM) or a main meal at dinner (DM) for 12 wk while

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

149 elemental iron (from ferrous sulfate) with a lunch meal containing either 4 oz.

150 ily consumption of an iron supplement with a lunch meal for 8 wk improved serum ferritin concentratio

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

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

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

154 diets comprising a breakfast and subsequent lunch meal.

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

156 I: 21.3 +/- 1.9 kg/m2] consumed 4 ad libitum lunch meals consisting of "soft minimally processed," "h

157 ry outcome was dietary quality of intake for lunch, measured by the Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-20

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

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

160 .g., As I emerge from the subway, can I find lunch, my friend, and a street sign in the scene before

161 However, there's no such thing as a free lunch: Not only benefits (like reward), but also costs i

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

169 and did not adversely affect glycemia after lunch or dinner.

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

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

172 ion, 735 control) placed at least one online lunch order and were included in the study, with 16,109

173 -120.19 mg; P < 0.001) contents per student lunch order were significantly lower in the intervention

174 at follow-up, a higher proportion of online lunch orders in intervention schools would contain the t

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

176 pplemental protein provided at breakfast and lunch over the current RDA enhanced anabolic signaling a

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

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

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

180 ), and not preparing breakfast (P = 0.04) or lunch (P = 0.01) at home.

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

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

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

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

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

186 ates; certainty of evidence was moderate for lunch participation and low or very low for other outcom

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

188 time for children, but no federal policy for lunch period duration exists in the United States.

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

190 ldren and were provided every study day with lunch prepared according to the National School Lunch Pr

191 -2010 in participants in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (S

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

193 ritional requirements of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) to reverse the potential role of th

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

195 ality of meals served in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

196 Additional strategies in the National School Lunch Program for mitigating food waste are needed to ma

197 ch prepared according to the National School Lunch Program nutrition standards.

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

199 f children in the Federally sponsored school lunch program.

200 nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program.

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

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

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

204 as increased in children who consumed packed lunches, secondary school children, and children of a lo

205 stered in a fasted state with a standardised lunch served 4.5 h post-dose.

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

207 ly when expecting to consume a large virtual lunch, suggesting satiety insecurity may motivate eating

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

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

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

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

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

213 ile there is a public demand for safe school lunches, the teachers and staff dealing with this demand

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

215 erts recommend at least 20 minutes of seated lunch time for children, but no federal policy for lunch

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

217 During 10 minutes of seated lunch time, participants consumed significantly less fru

218 oods (ASF) and skip breakfast at least up to lunch time.

219 to -5.7) compared with 20 minutes of seated lunch time.

220 ren to receive at least 20 minutes of seated lunch time; such policies could have favorable implicati

221 A total of 38 children with 241 lunch trays were observed.

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

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

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

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

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

227 121 kcal in women), and the reported time of lunch was approximately 35 min earlier.

228 prandial glycaemia (PPG) after breakfast and lunch was assessed by arterialized blood glucose iAUC.

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

230 The majority of schoolchildren's lunch was defined as UPFs, with secondary school childre

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

232 Each food material of his lunch was examined using a prick-prick test, allergen-sp

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

234 1994 indicated that salad consumption during lunch was linked with illness on 2 days (5 December: odd

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

236 Lunch was missed daily by 30 (3.8%) of 786 children in t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

244 and then subjects were offered an ad libitum lunch (water and pizza).

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

246 Skipping breakfast and skipping lunch were associated with greater odds of low self-este

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

248 dents and 80% receiving free or reduced-cost lunch were eligible.

249 c and at least 80% receiving free or reduced lunch were included.

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

251 School lunches were observed to determine what was really eaten

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

253 pper alone, skipping breakfast, and skipping lunch) were collected using the Harvard Youth/Adolescent

254 ups and 12 eating episodes (e.g., breakfast, lunch) were included as input parameters.

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

256 enced anaphylaxis while running after school lunch, which included canned peaches.

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

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

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

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

261 week 3 in energy intake during an ad libitum lunch with tirzepatide versus placebo.

262 ]; 452 [65.03%] eligible for free or reduced lunch) with complete demographic data and baseline and p

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