Effects of a 12-week aerobic exercise intervention on eating behaviour, food cravings, and 7-day energy intake and energy expenditure in inactive men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined effects of 12 weeks of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise on eating behaviour, food cravings, and weekly energy intake and expenditure in inactive men. Eleven healthy men (mean ± SD: age, 26 ± 5 years; body mass index, 24.6 ± 3.8 kg·m−2; maximum oxygen uptake, 43.1 ± 7.4 mL·kg−1·min−1) completed the 12-week supervised exercise programme. Body composition, health markers (e.g., blood pressure), eating behaviour, food cravings, and weekly energy intake and expenditure were assessed before and after the exercise intervention. There were no intervention effects on weekly free-living energy intake (p = 0.326, d = −0.12) and expenditure (p = 0.799, d = 0.04) or uncontrolled eating and emotional eating scores (p > 0.05). However, there was a trend with a medium effect size (p = 0.058, d = 0.68) for cognitive restraint to be greater after the exercise intervention. Total food cravings (p = 0.009, d = −1.19) and specific cravings of high-fat foods (p = 0.023, d = −0.90), fast-food fats (p = 0.009, d = −0.71), and carbohydrates/starches (p = 0.009, d = −0.56) decreased from baseline to 12 weeks. Moreover, there was a trend with a large effect size for cravings of sweets (p = 0.052, d = −0.86) to be lower after the exercise intervention. In summary, 12 weeks of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise reduced food cravings and increased cognitive restraint, but these changes were not accompanied by changes in other eating behaviours or weekly energy intake and expenditure. The results indicate the importance of exercising for health improvements even when reductions in body mass are modest.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".