Interleukin‐6 is not involved in appetite regulation following moderate‐intensity exercise in males with normal weight and obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective In obesogenic states and after exercise, interleukin (IL)‐6 elevations are established, and IL‐6 is speculated to be an appetite‐regulating mechanism. This study examined the role of IL‐6 on exercise‐induced appetite regulation in sedentary normal weight (NW) males and those with obesity (OB). Methods Nine NW participants and eight participants with OB completed one non‐exercise control (CTRL) and one moderate‐intensity continuous training (MICT; 60 minutes, 65% V̇O 2max ) session. IL‐6, acylated ghrelin, active peptide tyrosine‐tyrosine 3‐36 , active glucagon‐like peptide‐1, and overall appetite perceptions were measured fasted, pre exercise, and 30, 90, and 150 minutes post exercise. Results Fasted IL‐6 concentrations were elevated in OB ( p = 0.005, = 0.419); however, increases following exercise were similar between groups ( p = 0.934, = 0.000). Acylated ghrelin was lower in OB versus NW ( p < 0.017, d > 0.84), and OB did not respond to MICT ( p > 0.512, d < 0.44) although NW had a decrease versus CTRL ( p < 0.034, d > 0.61). IL‐6 did not moderate/mediate acylated ghrelin release after exercise ( p > 0.251). There were no observable effects of MICT on tyrosine‐tyrosine 3‐36 , glucagon‐like peptide‐1, or overall appetite ( p > 0.334, < 0.062). Conclusions These results suggest that IL‐6 is not involved in exercise‐induced appetite suppression. Despite blunted appetite‐regulatory peptide responses to MICT in participants with OB, NW participants exhibited decreased acylated ghrelin; however, no differences in appetite perceptions existed between CTRL and MICT or NW and OB.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".