Predictors of Energy Compensation during Exercise Interventions: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight loss from exercise-induced energy deficits is usually less than expected. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate predictors of energy compensation, which is defined as body energy changes (fat mass and fat-free mass) over the total amount of exercise energy expenditure. A search was conducted in multiple databases without date limits. Of 4745 studies found, 61 were included in this systematic review with a total of 928 subjects. The overall mean energy compensation was 18% ± 93%. The analyses indicated that 48% of the variance of energy compensation is explained by the interaction between initial fat mass, age and duration of exercise interventions. Sex, frequency, intensity and dose of exercise energy expenditure were not significant predictors of energy compensation. The fitted model suggested that for a shorter study duration, lower energy compensation was observed in younger individuals with higher initial fat mass (FM). In contrast, higher energy compensation was noted for younger individuals with lower initial FM. From 25 weeks onward, energy compensation was no longer different for these predictors. For studies of longer duration (about 80 weeks), the energy compensation approached 84%. Lower energy compensation occurs with short-term exercise, and a much higher level of energy compensation accompanies long-term exercise interventions.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".