The Role Of Blood Glucose In Exercise-induced Appetite Suppression.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Blood glucose concentrations are known to affect hunger perceptions and appetite hormones following nutrient ingestion. Further, exercise-intensity dependent effects have been demonstrated on blood glucose and appetite separately. PURPOSE: To examine the potential role of blood glucose as a potential mechanism for appetite suppression following exercise of differing intensities. METHODS: Ten recreationally-active males and females (8 male, 2 female; 25 ± 5 y; 22.6 ± 3.2 kg·m-2; 47.8 ± 8.0 mL·kg-1·min-1; females in the early follicular phase of their menstrual cycle) were recruited for a within-subjects randomized crossover experimental design completing three separate sessions; 1) No-exercise control (CTRL); 2) 30 min moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) run at 70% V̇O2max; or 3) running sprint interval training (SIT) with 4 x 30-s “all-out” efforts interspersed with 240-s recovery. Acylated ghrelin, active peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY), active glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), blood glucose, and overall subjective appetite perceptions were measured pre-exercise, as well as 0, 30, 60, and 120 min post-exercise. RESULTS: Blood glucose exhibited a main effect of session (P = 0.023) with differences existing between CTRL and MICT (4.6 ± 1.0 vs 5.0 ± 1.0 mmol·L-1; P = 0.056). Additionally, blood glucose concentrations demonstrated a main effect of time (P = 0.034) where 0 min post-exercise concentrations (5.5 ± 1.2 mmol·L-1) different compared to 30 min (4.7 ± 1.2 mmol·L-1; P = 0.027) and 120 min (4.7 ± 0.7 mmol·L-1; P = 0.089) post-exercise, likely driven by exercise-induced elevations. Acylated ghrelin was suppressed post-exercise following SIT compared to CTRL at all time points (>153 ± 82 pg·mL-1; P < 0.017) and MICT at 30, 60, and 120 min (>177 ± 48 pg·mL-1; P < 0.025). Though there were no exercise-induced effects on active PYY (P > 0.212), active GLP-1 was elevated 30 min post-MICT (6.71 ± 2.50 pmol·L-1) versus CTRL (5.20 ± 2.15 pmol·L-1; P = 0.006) and SIT (4.97 ± 2.39 pmol·L-1; P = 0.062). Overall appetite perceptions were consistently suppressed following SIT compared to CTRL (>12 ± 2 mm; P < 0.010) and MICT (>11 ± 2 mm; P < 0.012). CONCLUSION: Blood glucose does not appear to be involved in exercise-indued appetite suppression.
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) | 0.001 | 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".