Influence of postexercise fasting on hunger and satiety in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research demonstrates that exercise acutely reduces appetite by stimulating the secretion of gut-derived satiety hormones. Currently there is a paucity of research examining the impact of postexercise nutrient intake on appetite regulation. The objective of this study was to examine how postexercise fasting versus feeding impacts the postexercise appetite response. In a randomized crossover intervention, 14 participants (body mass index: 26.9 ± 3.5 kg·m −2 ; age: 26.8 ± 6.7 years) received 1 of 2 recovery beverages: (i) water control (FAST) or (ii) sweetened-milk (FED) after completing a 45-min (65%–70% peak oxygen uptake) evening exercise session (∼1900 h). Energy intake was assessed through a fasted ad libitum breakfast meal and 3-day food diaries. Perceived appetite was assessed using visual analogue scales. Appetite-regulating hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), peptide tyrosine-tyrosine (PYY), and acyl-ghrelin were assessed pre-exercise, 1 h after exercise, and the morning following exercise. FAST increased subjective hunger compared with FED (P < 0.05). PYY and GLP-1 after exercise were decreased and acyl-ghrelin was increased in FAST, with these differences disappearing the day after exercise (P < 0.05). Ad libitum energy intake at breakfast the following morning did not differ between trials. Overall, in the absence of postexercise macronutrient consumption, there was a pronounced increase in objective and subjective appetite after exercise. The orexigenic effects of postexercise fasting, however, were not observed the morning following exercise. Novelty Postexercise fasting leads to reduced GLP-1 and PYY and increased hunger. Reduced GLP-1 and PYY after exercise is blunted by postexercise nutrient intake. Energy intake the day after exercise is not influenced by postexercise fasting.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".