Overweight and obese boys reduce food intake in response to a glucose drink but fail to increase intake in response to exercise of short duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of short duration exercise (EXR) on food intake (FI) and energy balance (EB) is not well understood in either normal weight (NW) or overweight (OW) and obese (OB) 9-14 years old children. Our purpose was to describe the effects of activity and a glucose drink on short term FI, appetite, and EB in NW, OW, and OB boys. Each boy received in random order either a noncaloric Sucralose sweetened control or glucose (1.0 g·kg(-1) body weight) drink 5 min after either exercise (EXR) or sedentary (SED) activity. Boys exercised for 15 min at their ventilation threshold (V(T)) in experiment 1 or at 25% above their V(T) in experiment 2. FI was measured at an ad libitum pizza meal 30 min after drink consumption. FI was lower after the glucose drink (p < 0.001) but not affected by activity, even though EXR increased appetite (p < 0.001). OW/OB boys ate more total food than NW boys (p = 0.020). EB over the duration of the experiments was reduced by EXR in OW/OB boys (p = 0.013) but not in NW boys in either experiment (p > 0.05). We conclude that intake regulation in OW/OB boys in response to a glucose drink is similar to NW boys, but it may be less responsive to activity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".