Acute effects of exercise intensity on subsequent substrate utilisation, appetite, and energy balance in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise is capable of influencing the regulation of energy balance by acutely modulating appetite and energy intake coupled to effects on substrate utilization. Yet, few studies have examined acute effects of exercise intensity on aspects of both energy intake and energy metabolism, independently of energy cost of exercise. Furthermore, little is known as to the gender differences of these effects. One hour after a standardised breakfast, 40 (19 female), healthy participants (BMI 23.6 ± 3.6 kg·m−2, V̇O2peak 34.4 ± 6.8 mL·kg−1·min−1) undertook either high-intensity intermittent cycling (HIIC) consisting of 8 repeated 60 s bouts of cycling at 95% V̇O2peak or low-intensity continuous cycling (LICC), equivalent to 50% V̇O2peak, matched for energy cost (∼950 kJ) followed by 90 mins of rest, in a randomised crossover design. Throughout each study visit, satiety was assessed subjectively using visual analogue scales alongside blood metabolites and GLP-1. Energy expenditure and substrate utilization were measured over 75 min postexercise via indirect calorimetry. Energy intake was assessed for 48 h postintervention. No differences in appetite, GLP-1, or energy intakes were observed between HIIC and LICC, with or without stratifying for gender. Significant differences in postexercise nonesterified fatty acid concentrations were observed between intensities in both genders, coupled to a significantly lower respiratory exchange ratio following HIIC (P = 0.0028), with a trend towards greater reductions in respiratory exchange ratioin males (P = 0.079). In conclusion, high-intensity exercise, if energy matched, does not lead to greater appetite or energy intake, but may exert additional beneficial metabolic effects that may be more pronounced in males.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".