Energy depletion by 24-h fast leads to compensatory appetite responses compared with matched energy depletion by exercise in healthy young males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is a growing interest for the effects of intermittent fasting on energy balance, this study aimed to compare appetite, energy intake and food reward responses with an energy depletion induced either by 24-h food restriction or an equivalent deficit with exercise in healthy males. In all, twelve healthy lean males (21·5 (sd 0·5) years old; BMI: 22·5 (sd 1·7) kg/m2) participated in this study. Body composition, aerobic capacity, food preferences and energy intake were assessed. They randomly completed three conditions: (i) no depletion (CON); (ii) full 24-h energy restrictions (Def-EI); and (iii) exercise condition (Def-EX). Ad libitum energy intake and food reward were assessed at the end of each session. Appetite feelings were assessed regularly. Ad libitum energy intake was higher on Def-EI (7330 (sd 2975) kJ (1752 (sd 711) kcal) compared with that on CON (5301 (sd 1205) kJ (1267 (sd 288) kcal)) (P<0·05), with no difference between CON and Def-EX (6238 (sd 1741) kJ (1491 (sd 416) kcal) (P=0·38) and between Def-EX and Def-EI (P=0·22). There was no difference in the percent energy ingested from macronutrients. Hunger was lower on CON and Def-EX compared with Def-EI (P<0·001). Satiety was higher on CON and Def-EI compared with that on Def-EX (P<0·001). There was a significant interaction condition × time for food choice fat bias (P=0·04), showing a greater preference for high-fat v. low-fat food during Def-EI and Def-EX. Although 24-h fasting leads to increased energy intake at the following test meal (without total daily energy intake difference), increased hunger profile and decreased post-meal food choice fat bias, such nutritional responses are not observed after a similar deficit induced by exercise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".