The effects of exercise and ambient temperature on dietary intake, appetite sensation, and appetite regulating hormone concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the frequently reported phenomenon of exercise-induced anorexia is exacerbated or blunted in warm or cold environments. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of exercise in three different environmental temperatures vs. rest, on perceptions of appetite, appetite regulating hormones, and food intake. METHODS: In a randomized repeated-measures design, 18 Canadian Armed Forces members (14 male, 4 female) completed four 8-h trials in a thermally-controlled chamber: one 8-h resting trial at 21 °C (Sedentary); and three trials where participants completed two 2-h circuits of standardized military tasks interspersed with two 2-h rest periods, once at 30 °C (Hot), once at 21 °C (Temperate), and once at - 10 °C (Cold). Participants consumed military field rations ad libitum and had their appetite assessed with visual analogue scales. Plasma concentrations of GLP-1, PYY, acylated ghrelin, and leptin were also determined. RESULTS: > 0.05). Relative energy intake (total 24 h energy intake minus 24 h energy expenditure) on the other hand, was significantly higher during the Sedentary condition than it was during any of the active conditions (p < 0.05). Most (83%) of the participants were in a positive energy balance during the Sedentary condition, whereas during most (80%) of the active conditions (Hot, Temperate, Cold) participants were in a negative energy balance. CONCLUSIONS: In this study where food was freely available, variations in ambient temperature, exercise vs. rest, appetite-regulating hormone concentrations, and subjective appetite sensation were not associated with any changes in dietary intake within 24-h of acute, prolonged 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".