These types of matchmaking is basically the same in lean and fat moms and dads
In the totally modified patterns together with full times and you may weight intake, new HEI-2010 try a far greater predictor out-of gestational weight gain than PEI-UPF (Adj. R 2 = 0.26, in the place of 0.14 having PEI-UPF). Yet not, PEI-UPF was still a better predictor out of child surplus fat payment, thigh skinfold density, and you will subscapular skinfold occurrence compared to the HEI-2010 (Adj. Roentgen dos = 0.01, 0.fourteen, and you can 0.ten, unlike ?0.09, ?0.02, and you can ?0.02, respectively) (maybe not shown for the dining table). No matter if HEI-2010 have an increased association which have subscapular skinfold occurrence than PEI-UPF (considering P-viewpoints in the Table 5), Adjusted R dos philosophy imply that complete brand new HEI-2010 design was a tough predictor as compared to PEI-UPF design. In addition, incorporating HEI-2010 given that an effective predictor within five totally adjusted PEI-UPF habits didn't rather raise fit (p ? 0.097 from most contribution-of-squares F-sample in most circumstances). New failure regarding HEI-2010 adjust model complement try probably because of brand new good (negative) relationship anywhere between PEI-UPF and you can HEI-2010.
These types of matchmaking is basically the same in lean and fat moms and dads
In the totally modified patterns together with full times and you may weight intake, new HEI-2010 try a far greater predictor out-of gestational weight gain than PEI-UPF (Adj. R 2 = 0.26, in the place of 0.14 having PEI-UPF). Yet not, PEI-UPF was still a better predictor out of child surplus fat payment, thigh skinfold density, and you will subscapular skinfold occurrence compared to the HEI-2010 (Adj. Roentgen dos = 0.01, 0.fourteen, and you can 0.ten, unlike ?0.09, ?0.02, and you can ?0.02, respectively) (maybe not shown for the dining table). No matter if HEI-2010 have an increased association which have subscapular skinfold occurrence than PEI-UPF (considering P-viewpoints in the Table 5), Adjusted R dos philosophy imply that complete brand new HEI-2010 design was a tough predictor as compared to PEI-UPF design. In addition, incorporating HEI-2010 given that an effective predictor within five totally adjusted PEI-UPF habits didn't rather raise fit (p ? 0.097 from most contribution-of-squares F-sample in most circumstances). New failure regarding HEI-2010 adjust model complement try probably because of brand new good (negative) relationship anywhere between PEI-UPF and you can HEI-2010.
These types of matchmaking is basically the same in lean and fat moms and dads
In the totally modified patterns together with full times and you may weight intake, new HEI-2010 try a far greater predictor out-of gestational weight gain than PEI-UPF (Adj. R 2 = 0.26, in the place of 0.14 having PEI-UPF). Yet not, PEI-UPF was still a better predictor out of child surplus fat payment, thigh skinfold density, and you will subscapular skinfold occurrence compared to the HEI-2010 (Adj. Roentgen dos = 0.01, 0.fourteen, and you can 0.ten, unlike ?0.09, ?0.02, and you can ?0.02, respectively) (maybe not shown for the dining table). No matter if HEI-2010 have an increased association which have subscapular skinfold occurrence than PEI-UPF (considering P-viewpoints in the Table 5), Adjusted R dos philosophy imply that complete brand new HEI-2010 design was a tough predictor as compared to PEI-UPF design. In addition, incorporating HEI-2010 given that an effective predictor within five totally adjusted PEI-UPF habits didn't rather raise fit (p ? 0.097 from most contribution-of-squares F-sample in most circumstances). New failure regarding HEI-2010 adjust model complement try probably because of brand new good (negative) relationship anywhere between PEI-UPF and you can HEI-2010.
