Energy intake over 2 days is unaffected by acute sprint interval exercise despite increased appetite and energy expenditure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cumulative effect of reduced energy intake, increased oxygen consumption, and/or increased lipid oxidation could explain the fat loss associated with sprint interval exercise training (SIT). This study assessed the effects of acute sprint interval exercise (SIE) on energy intake, subjective appetite, appetite-related peptides, oxygen consumption, and respiratory exchange ratio over 2 days. Eight men (25 ± 3 years, 79.6 ± 9.7 kg, body fat 13% ± 6%; mean ± SD) completed 2 experimental treatments: SIE and recovery (SIEx) and nonexercise control. Each 34-h treatment consisted of 2 consecutive 10-h test days. Between 0800-1800 h, participants remained in the laboratory for 8 breath-by-breath gas collections, 3 buffet-type meals, 14 appetite ratings, and 4 blood samples for appetite-related peptides. Treatment comparisons were made using 2-way repeated measures ANOVA or t tests. An immediate, albeit short-lived (<1 h), postexercise suppression of appetite and increase in peptide YY (PYY) were observed (P < 0.001). However, overall hunger and motivation to eat were greater during SIEx (P < 0.02) without affecting energy intake. Total 34-h oxygen consumption was greater during SIEx (P = 0.04), elicited by the 1491-kJ (22%) greater energy expenditure over the first 24 h (P = 0.01). Despite its effects on oxygen consumption, appetite, and PYY, acute SIE did not affect energy intake. Consequently, if these dietary responses to SIE are sustained with regular SIT, augmentations in oxygen consumption and/or a substrate shift toward increased fat use postexercise are most likely responsible for the observed body fat loss with this type of exercise training.
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".