Hunger is suppressed after resistance exercise with moderate-load compared to high-load resistance exercise: the potential influence of metabolic and autonomic parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of present study was to compare the effects of moderate-load versus high-load resistance exercise (RE) on hunger response, blood lactate, glucose, and autonomic modulation in trained men, and to examine the correlations between these parameters. For this, 11 recreationally resistance-trained males performed 2 randomized trials: moderate-load (6 sets at 70% 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and a 90-s rest interval between sets) and high-load (6 sets at 90% 1RM and a 180-s rest interval between sets) leg-press exercise until movement failure. The subjective rating of hunger was obtained through a visual analog scale. Glucose and lactate concentration were evaluated at rest, immediately after exercise, and 30 min after exercise. Heart rate variability was recorded at baseline and during recovery (until 30 min after exercise) to assess autonomic modulation. The moderate-load condition induced lower subjective hunger ratings than the strength condition immediately after exercise (19.7 ± 16.6 vs 47.3 ± 27.7 mm), 30 min after exercise (33.6 ± 22.9 vs 58.5 ± 29.9 mm), and 60 min after exercise (43.8 ± 26.6 vs 67.8 ± 27.9 mm) (p < 0.05) and lower area under the curve hunger in relation to the high-load condition (p < 0.006). Moderate-load RE presented greater lactate concentration and induced slower heart rate variability recovery in relation to high-load RE (p < 0.05), but no difference was found in glucose, as well as no correlations between any of the variables investigated. In conclusion, moderate-load RE induced lower subjective hunger ratings, slower recovery of the parasympathetic nervous system, and higher lactate concentration in relation to high-load RE, but the metabolic variables were not correlated with hunger suppression.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".