Effect of exercise intensity and mode on acute appetite control in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of exercise intensity on appetite control: relative energy intake (energy intake minus the energy expenditure of exercise; REI), hunger scores, and appetite-regulating hormones in men and women. Eleven men and 9 women were submitted to 4 experimental sessions: high-intensity intermittent all-out exercise (HIIE-A) for 60 × 8 s interspersed by 12 s of passive recovery; high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) at 100% of maximal load attained in incremental test; steady-state exercise at 60% of maximal load, matched by work done; and a control session. Exercise was performed 1.5 h after a standardized breakfast, and an ad libitum lunch was offered 4 h after breakfast. Blood concentration of insulin, cortisol, acylated ghrelin, peptideYY3-36, glucose, and hunger scores were measured when fasting, and at 1.5, 2, 3.25, and 4 h of experiment. REI was lower in all exercises than in the control, without differences between exercises and sex showing no compensation in energy intake because of any exercise; the hunger scores were lower only in the exercises performed at higher intensity (HIIE and HIIE-A) compared with the control. The area under the curve of acylated ghrelin was lower in the HIIE-A when compared with the control. PeptideYY3-36 was higher in men than women and cortisol higher in women than men independently of the condition. Although high-intensity exercises promoted a little more pronounced effects in the direction of suppressing the appetite, no differences were observed in REI, demonstrating that these modifications were not sufficient to affect energy intake.
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".