Breaking up prolonged sitting time with walking does not affect appetite or gut hormone concentrations but does induce an energy deficit and suppresses postprandial glycaemia in sedentary adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breaking up periods of prolonged sitting can negate harmful metabolic effects but the influence on appetite and gut hormones is not understood and is investigated in this study. Thirteen sedentary (7 female) participants undertook three 5-h trials in random order: (i) uninterrupted sitting (SIT), (ii) seated with 2-min bouts of light-intensity walking every 20 min (SIT + LA), and (iii) seated with 2-min bouts of moderate-intensity walking every 20 min (SIT + MA). A standardised test drink was provided at the start of each trial and an ad libitum pasta test meal provided at the end of each trial. Subjective appetite ratings and plasma acylated ghrelin, peptide YY, insulin, and glucose were measured at regular intervals. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each variable. AUC values for appetite and gut hormone concentrations were unaffected in the activity breaks conditions compared with uninterrupted sitting (linear mixed modelling: p > 0.05). Glucose AUC was lower in SIT + MA than in SIT + LA (p = 0.004) and SIT (p = 0.055). There was no difference in absolute ad libitum energy intake between conditions (p > 0.05); however, relative energy intake was lower in SIT + LA (39%; p = 0.011) and SIT + MA (120%; p < 0.001) than in SIT. In conclusion, breaking up prolonged sitting does not alter appetite and gut hormone responses to a meal over a 5-h period. Increased energy expenditure from activity breaks could promote an energy deficit that is not compensated for in a subsequent meal.
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".