Effects of acute exercise on appetite hormones and ad libitum energy intake in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute exercise suppresses relative energy intake; however, it remains unclear whether this occurs in both men and women exposed to the same relative exercise treatment. Eleven healthy men (22 ± 2 years; 16% ± 6% body fat (BF); 26 ± 4 body mass index (BMI); 42.9 ± 6.5 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) peak oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O(2peak))) and 10 healthy women (21 ± 2 years; 24 ± 2 BMI; 23% ± 3% BF; 39.9 ± 5.5 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) [Formula: see text]O(2peak)) rested for 60 min or exercised on a cycle ergometer at 70% [Formula: see text]O(2peak) until 30% of total daily energy expenditure was expended (men, expenditure = 975 ± 195 kcal in 82 ± 13 min; women, expenditure = 713 ± 86 kcal in 84 ± 17 min) in a counterbalanced, crossover fashion. Appetite hormones and appetite ratings were assessed in response to each condition. Forty minutes after both conditions, ad libitum total and relative energy intake (energy intake minus energy cost of exercise) were assessed at a buffet meal. There was no significant sex or condition effect in appetite hormones (PYY(3-36), acylated ghrelin, insulin) and appetite ratings (hunger, satisfaction, fullness). Total energy intake in men was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in exercise and rest conditions (1648 ± 950, 1216 ± 633 kcal, respectively) compared with women (591 ± 183, 590 ± 231 kcal, respectively). Relative energy intake was significantly lower (P < 0.05) after exercise compared with rest in men (672 ± 827, 1133 ± 619 kcal, respectively) and women (-121 ± 243, 530 ± 233 kcal, respectively). These data highlight the effectiveness of acute exercise to suppress relative energy intake regardless of sex.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".