Table 4. Exercise as a predictor of meal healthiness (Study 2).
Odds ratio | Lower limit | Upper limit | b | SE | t | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unhealthy vs. mixed meals | ||||||||
Intercepta | 0.99 | 0.77 | 1.26 | -0.01 | 0.12 | -0.12 | .904 | |
Post-exercise eating occasion | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.77 | -0.60 | 0.17 | -3.51 | < .001 | |
Healthy vs. mixed meals | ||||||||
Intercepta | 0.85 | 0.68 | 1.07 | -0.16 | 0.11 | -1.40 | .168 | |
Post-exercise eating occasion | 0.71 | 0.54 | 0.92 | -0.35 | 0.13 | -2.59 | .010 |
Note. Meal healthiness was a multicategorical outcome variable with three categories (unhealthy, mixed, healthy), generating two comparisons against mixed, the reference category: (1) Unhealthy vs. mixed meals and (2) Healthy vs. mixed meals. Exercise was a dichotomous predictor (1 = post-exercise eating occasion, 0 = random eating occasion on non-exercise day). Bold denotes that the predictor was significant.
aIntercept of the hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) refers to when the value of both the exercise predictor = 0 (i.e., random eating occasion on non-exercise day) and meal healthiness = 0 (i.e., mixed, reference category).