Appetite, energy intake, and PYY<sub>3–36</sub> responses to energy-matched continuous exercise and submaximal high-intensity exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-intensity intermittent exercise induces physiological adaptations similar to energy-matched continuous exercise, but the comparative appetite and energy balance responses are unknown. Twelve healthy males (mean ± SD: age, 22 ± 3 years; body mass index, 23.7 ± 3.0 kg·m(-2); maximum oxygen uptake, 52.4 ± 7.1 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)) completed three 8 h trials (control, steady-state exercise (SSE), high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE)) separated by 1 week. Trials commenced upon completion of a standardized breakfast. Exercise was performed from hour 2 to hour 3. In SSE, 60 min of cycling at 59.5% ± 1.6% of maximum oxygen uptake was performed. In HIIE, ten 4-min cycling intervals were completed at 85.8% ± 4.0% of maximum oxygen uptake, with a 2-min rest between each interval. A standardized lunch and an ad libitum afternoon meal were provided at hours 3.75 and 7, respectively. Appetite ratings and peptide YY3-36 concentrations were measured throughout each trial. Appetite was acutely suppressed during exercise, but more so during HIIE (p < 0.05). Peptide YY3-36 concentrations increased significantly upon cessation of exercise in SSE (p = 0.002), but were highest in the hours after exercise in HIIE (p = 0.05). Exercise energy expenditure was not different between HIIE and SSE (p = 0.649), but perceived exertion was higher in HIIE (p < 0.0005). Ad libitum energy intake did not differ between trials (p = 0.833). Therefore, relative energy intake (energy intake minus the net energy expenditure of exercise) was lower in the SSE and HIIE trials than in the control trial (control, 4759 ± 1268 kJ; SSE, 2362 ± 1224 kJ; HIIE, 2523 ± 1402 kJ; p < 0.0005). An acute bout of energy-matched continuous exercise and HIIE were equally effective at inducing an energy deficit without stimulating compensatory increases in appetite.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".