Irisin response to acute moderate intensity exercise and high intensity interval training in youth of different obesity statuses: A randomized crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited data exist regarding the impact of an acute bout of exercise with varying intensities on irisin levels in the youth of different obesity statuses. The objectives were to (1) compare an acute bout of moderate continuous intensity (MCI) exercise and an acute bout of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on irisin response in youth with different obesity statuses and, (2) investigate whether changes in irisin levels are correlated with exploratory outcomes. A randomized crossover design study was conducted on 25 youth aged 12-18 years old. Participants were classified as either healthy weight (BMI percentile <85; n = 14) or overweight/obese (BMI percentile ≥85; n = 11). Participants performed an MCI exercise session at 50% of heart rate reserve for 35 min and a HIIT exercise session for 35 min, with intervals every 5 min increasing from 50% heart rate reserve to 85-90% for 2 min. Irisin was measured using an enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay from plasma sampling obtained throughout the exercise (at times 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 min). A time effect was observed throughout the HIIT session [F(1,5) = 6.478, p < 0.001]. Bonferonni post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences in irisin levels post-exercise (35 min) compared to times 7, 14, 21, and 28 min. Irisin increased during HIIT (81.0% ± 71.3; p = 0.012) in youth with a healthy weight. No differences were observed for youth living as overweight or with obesity. Overall, HIIT elicits a higher peak irisin response compared to MCI exercise training in youth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".