Energy intake and appetite-related hormones following acute aerobic and resistance exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that resistance and aerobic exercise have differing effects on perceived hunger and circulating levels of appetite-related hormones. However, the effect of resistance and aerobic exercise on actual energy intake has never been compared. This study investigated the effect of an acute bout of resistance exercise, compared with aerobic exercise, on subsequent energy intake and appetite-regulating hormones. Ten active men completed 3 trials in a counterbalanced design: 45 min of resistance exercise (RES; free and machine weights), aerobic exercise (AER; running), or a resting control trial (CON). Following exercise or CON, participants had access to a buffet-style array of breakfast foods and drinks to consume ad libitum. Plasma concentrations of a range of appetite-regulating hormones were measured throughout each trial. Despite significantly higher energy expenditure with AER compared with RES (p < 0.05), there was no difference in total energy intake from the postexercise meal between trials (p = 0.779). Pancreatic polypeptide was significantly higher prior to the meal after both RES and AER compared with CON. In contrast, active ghrelin was lower following RES compared with both CON and AER (p ≤ 0.05), while insulin was higher following RES compared with CON (p = 0.013). In summary, the differential response of appetite-regulating hormones to AER and RES does not appear to influence energy intake in the postexercise meal. However, given the greater energy expenditure associated with AER compared with RES, AER modes of exercise may be preferable for achieving short-term negative energy balance.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".