*3.2. Network structure in Group L and Group H*

The network analysis was carried out on the overall sample, which included 253 Group H patients and 463 Group L patients. The network structure confirmed that SF-36 physical and mental components, colored in black and white, respectively, comprised two distinct clusters in both Groups (Figure 1). Groups H and L displayed similar values for the maximum difference in all of the edge weights of the networks (M = 0.30, *p* = 0.11). Moreover, the difference in global strength between the networks was not significant (S = 0.18, *p* = 0.82).

Concerning the centrality of SF-36 domains, two domains played a key role. In Group H, Physical Functioning and Vitality had the highest betweenness (directly connecting more items with each other) and closeness (direct and indirect connections with other items), and Vitality had the highest degree (stronger links with other items). On the other hand, in Group L, Emotional Role Functioning and Physical Role Functioning had the highest betweenness, whereas Vitality had highest closeness, and Vitality and Mental Health the highest degrees (stronger links with other items).

**Figure 1.** The network of SF-36 quality-of-life domains for patients with obesity walking less than predicted during the six-minute walking test (Group L, on the left), and for patients with obesity walking as far as or farther than predicted during the six-minute walking test (Group H, on the right), and their respective centrality indices (panel C: red line = Group L; blue line = Group H).
