Sex Differences in the Effects of Mental Work and Moderate-Intensity Physical Activity on Energy Intake in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the acute effects of mental work and moderate-intensity physical activity on various components of energy balance in young and healthy adults. With the use of a randomized crossover design, 35 participants aged 24 ± 3 years completed three 45-min conditions, namely, (i) resting in a sitting position (control), (ii) reading and writing (mental work (MW)), and (iii) exercising on a treadmill at 40% of peak oxygen uptake (exercise), followed by an ad libitum lunch. The endpoints were spontaneous energy intake (EI), energy expenditure (EE), appetite sensations, and EI for the remainder of the day. We observed that the energy cost of the control and MW conditions was about the same whereas the exercise condition increased EE to a greater extent in men than women. Exercise induced a decrease in EI relative to EE compared to the control condition that was more pronounced in men than women. However, women tended to increase their energy intake after the MW condition compared to the control one whereas an opposite trend was observed in men. None of the appetite sensation markers differed significantly between both sexes. In conclusion, men and women have specific food intake patterns when submitted to cognitive and physical stimuli.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".