Ghrelin but Not Peptide YY Is Related to Change in Body Weight and Energy Availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine changes in fasting total peptide YY (PYY) and ghrelin in nonobese premenopausal women after an exercise and diet program with and without weight loss. METHODS: Body composition, energy balance parameters, ghrelin, and PYY were measured before and after a 3-month intervention in nonexercising controls (n = 7) and exercising women who either remained weight stable (n = 5) or lost weight (n = 10). At baseline, subjects were 20.6 ± 2.2 yr, weighed 58.0 ± 4.8 kg, and had 27.2% ± 4.9% body fat. Supervised exercise training occurred five times a week for up to 90 min at 70%-80% of maximum HR. Subjects were fed a controlled diet. RESULTS: Body weight (-3.2 ± 0.8 kg) and fat mass (-2.6 ± 0.7 kg) decreased significantly in the weight-loss exercise group. Neither fasting ghrelin nor PYY changed in response to exercise training in the absence of weight loss, and PYY did not change with exercise and weight loss. Fasting ghrelin did reveal a significant time × experimental group interaction (P = 0.025). The change in ghrelin was inversely correlated with the change in body weight, body mass index, fat-free mass, and energy availability. CONCLUSIONS: Neither fasting ghrelin nor fasting PYY seem to play a role in the adaptive changes associated with exercise training when exercise occurs in the absence of weight loss. Fasting ghrelin concentrations increase when body weight is lost and may respond to even smaller changes in energy availability. However, fasting PYY does not seem to play a key role in the regulation of energy balance during diet- and exercise-associated weight loss.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".