Impact of Exercise Timing on Chemosensory Response, Appetite, and Energy Intake in Lean Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-intensity exercise can have an anorectic impact, leading to negative energy balance. Several studies have reported that the practice of physical activity could also cause a shift in perceptions and preferences, causing a change in food intakes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to question to what extent the timing of exercise in relation to a meal could have an impact on olfaction and gustation, appetite, and food choices. METHODS: Twelve males aged 25 (4) years with a body mass index of 22.4 (2.0) kg/m2 attended two experimental visits in a counterbalanced fashion. The participants consumed a standardized breakfast between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m. and were subjected to smell and taste tests upon arrival at the laboratory (8:30 a.m.). In the EX9:40 visit, the participants performed a 30-min exercise session (70% of maximum oxygen uptake) at 9:40 a.m., followed by a 90-min sedentary break. In EX10:30, the participants first took part in the 90-min sedentary break and then performed the 30-min exercise session at 10:30 a.m. Taste and smell tests were performed again at 11:40 a.m., immediately followed by an ad libitum buffet-style meal. Visual analog scales were used to report appetite sensations during the session and satiety quotients around the lunch. RESULTS: There was no difference in energy intakes between the EX9:40 (596 [302] kcal) and EX10:30 (682 [263] kcal) conditions (p = .459). There was no condition effect for the taste and smell sensations (all ps > .05), appetite sensation, or satiety quotients around the meal (all ps > .05). CONCLUSION: Exercise timing in the morning had no effect on taste and smell perceptions, appetite sensations, or energy intakes.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".