Effect of exercise-meal timing on energy intake, appetite and food reward in adolescents with obesity: The TIMEX study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study manipulated the delay between exercise and test meal to investigate its effect on energy intake, appetite sensations and food reward in adolescents with obesity. Fifteen adolescents with obesity randomly completed 3 experimental sessions: i) rest without exercise (CON); ii) 30 min of exercise 180 min before lunch (EX-180); iii) 30 min of exercise 60 min before lunch (EX-60). Ad libitum energy intake was assessed at lunch and dinner, and food reward (LFPQ) assessed before and after lunch. Appetite sensations were assessed at regular intervals. Absolute energy intake was not different between conditions despite a 14.4% lower intake in EX-60 relative to CON. Lunch relative energy intake (REI: energy intake - exercise-induced energy expenditure) was higher in CON compared with EX-60 (p < 0.001). Lunch fat intake was lower in EX-60 compared with CON (p = 0.01) and EX-180(p = 0.02). Pre-lunch hunger in CON was lower than EX-180 (p = 0.02). Pre-lunch prospective food consumption and desire to eat were lower in CON compared with both exercise conditions (p = 0.001). A significant condition effect was found for explicit liking for high-fat relative to low-fat foods before lunch (p = 0.03) with EX-60 being significantly lower than EX-180 (p = 0.001). The nutritional and food reward adaptations to exercise might be dependent on the timing of exercise, which is of importance to optimize its effect on energy balance in adolescents with obesity. CLINICAL TRIAL REFERENCE: NCT03807609.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".