## 3 Results
### Genetic Risk Score for Obesity and Eating Behavior
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dimension** & **Subscale** & **GRS** & **GRS** & **GRS** \\  & **(Q1:\(\leq\)19 Points)** & **(Q2: 20-22 Points)** & **(Q3: 23-25 Points)** & **(Q4: \(>\)25 Points)** & **Comparison** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Pro-intake} & 1. Enjoyment of food (EF) & 3.84 \(\pm\) 0.68 & 3.92 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 3.90 \(\pm\) 0.64 & 3.92 \(\pm\) 0.63 & F = 0.513 \\  & (X \(\pm\) SD) & 2.29 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 2.13 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 2.53 \(\pm\) 0.90 & 2.51 \(\pm\) 1.21 & F = 7.118 \\  & (X \(\pm\) SD) & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.79 & 1.91 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 2.30 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 2.18 \(\pm\) 0.92 & F = 7.334 \\  & (X \(\pm\) SD) & 2.44 \(\pm\) 0.93 & 2.18 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 2.45 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 2.04 \(\pm\) 0.92 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Anti-intake} & 5. Satiely responsiveness (SR) & 2.46 \(\pm\) 0.65 & 2.46 \(\pm\) 0.48 & 2.45 \(\pm\) 0.71 & 2.38 \(\pm\) 0.70 & F = 0.736 \\  & (X \(\pm\) SD) & 2.53 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 2.49 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 2.55 \(\pm\) 0.90 & 2.28 \(\pm\) 1.02 & F = 2.810 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 7. Emotional undereating (EUE) & 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 2.65 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.86 & 2.41 \(\pm\) 0.90 & F = 8.561 \\ \cline{1-1}  & (X \(\pm\) SD) & 2.63 \(\pm\) 0.86 & 2.76 \(\pm\) 0.98 & 2.87 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 2.55 \(\pm\) 0.79 & F = 3.452 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Q: quartile; X: mean; SD: standard deviation. Analysis by Kruskal–Wallis test; (*) significant differences.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of mean scores of CEBQ subscales according to categories of polygenic risk of obesity (GRS), calculated with 32 SNPs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **GRS** \(\leq\)**Q2** \\ **(\(\leq\)22 Points)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **GRS** \(\geq\)**Q3** \\ **(\(\geq\)23 Points)** \\ \end{tabular}  & **Comparison** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{BMI 1} & Normal weight & 69.60\% & 74.30\% & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\chi^{2}=6.245\)} \\  & Overweight & 24.10\% & 14.60\% & \\ \cline{2-3}  & Obesity & 6.30\% & 11.10\% & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{WHR 2} & Normal weight & 58.90\% & 52.80\% & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\chi^{2}=1.235\)} \\  & Abdominal overweight & 14.60\% & 16.70\% & \\ \cline{2-3}  & Abdominal obesity & 26.60\% & 30.60\% & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\%BF 3} & Medium (\(p\) \(<\) 90) & 54.90\% & 52.10\% & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\chi^{2}=2.679\)} \\  & High (p90–p97) & 18.20\% & 20.80\% & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Very High & (\(>\)p97) & 26.90\% & 27.10\% & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\%BF 3} & Medium (\(p\) \(<\) 90) & 54.90\% & 52.10\% & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\chi^{2}=2.679\)} \\  & High (p90–p97) & 18.20\% & 20.80\% & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Very High & (\(>\)p97) & 26.90\% & 27.10\% & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\%BF 3} & Q: quartile; BMI: body mass index; WHI: waist-height index; NS: not significant, according to a Chi-square test (all variables show non-normal distribution): (*) significant differences. 1 Applying the cutoff points for BMI proposed by [PERSON] et al. [21]. 2 Applying the cutoff points for WHR proposed by [PERSON] et al. [22]. 3 Applying the cutoff points for fat percentage proposed by [PERSON] et al. [24]. 4 Applying obesity (GRS), calculated with 32 SNPs. To investigate the degree to which the risk allele of each SNP increases the possible obesogenic behavior, the inverse OR values were plotted, corresponding to the anti-intake subscales, when constructing Figure 2. Thus, the obesogenic behaviors are positioned on the right and the non-obesogenic behaviors on the left of Figure 2.  
Figure 1: Associations between some independent SNPs and the pro-ingestion subscales of the CEBQ (N= 258). CEBQ-EF: food enjoyment subscale; CEBQ-FR: food response subscale; CEBQ-EOE: emotional overeating subscale; CEBQ-DD: desire to drink subscale. Binary logistic regression analysis was applied. Values are OR (95% CI) for sex- and age-adjusted models. Significant association * \(p<0.05\). Independent variable: containing or not at least one risk allele of each SNP. Reference group = category having no risk allele of each SNP.