MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of a Second Bout of Strenuous Exercise on Appetite Regulating Hormones and Food Intake

2017· article· en· W4389024152 on OpenAlexaffabout
Iva Mandić, Mavra Ahmed, Mary R. L’Abbé, Shawn G. Rhind, Len Goodman, Ira Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppetitePeptide YYGhrelinInternal medicineCrossover studyEndocrinologyHormoneLeptinMedicineAnorexiaSupperObesityNeuropeptide Y receptorPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strenuous exercise typically shifts the hormonal milieu towards acute appetite suppression, which may persist for 30 min post‐exercise. Since no compensatory drive to eat occurs following exercise, a negative energy balance transpires. Although this exercise‐induced‐anorexia has been examined at different times of the day, it is still unclear whether a compensatory shift eventually occurs, or if this phenomenon is exacerbated with repeated exercise on the same day. This study investigated the effects of two bouts of strenuous exercise on appetite regulating hormones, perceptions of appetite, and food intake. In a randomized crossover design, 18 moderately fit (VO 2 max 44±6 ml·kg·min −1 ) Canadian Armed Forces members (14 male, 4 female) volunteered to complete two 8‐h trials. One trial involved completing two 2‐h circuits of military activities of varying intensities interspersed with 2 h of rest (EX), the other involved 8 h of rest (REST). Participants consumed military rations ad libitum during the trials, and were provided with a supper ration pack to consume at home. Visual analogue scales for appetite as well as venous plasma concentrations of GLP‐1, PYY, acylated ghrelin, and leptin were assessed throughout the trials. Participants expended significantly more energy during the EX trial, expending 1649±322 kcal during the 4 h of exercise vs. 404±68 kcal over the same time period during REST. Although the hormonal changes during EX favoured appetite suppression with: 1) elevated PYY levels during EX as compared to REST (53.9±13.8 pg/ml vs. 47.2±9.0 pg/ml), 2) supressed acylated ghrelin levels during EX as compared to REST (75.0±49.7 pg/ml vs. 109.6±59.4 pg/ml), and 3) larger increases in GLP‐1 levels from immediately following exercise to 1 h post‐exercise (3.3±2.7 pg/ml – 4.8±3.2 pg/ml), as compared to the equivalent time periods during the REST trial (3.6±1.6 pg/ml – 3.8±1.7 pg/ml); no significant differences were found between conditions for food energy consumed either during the eight hours in the lab (EX:2055±680 kcal vs. REST:1910±630 kcal), or during the subsequent meal consumed at home (EX:868±410 kcal vs. REST:1014±701 kcal). Similarly no significant trial effects emerged for any measure of appetite sensation. These results demonstrate that energy expenditure and energy intake remain uncoupled even following 2 bouts of arduous exercise. Hormonal responses following the second exercise bout were not significantly different from those found after the first exercise bout, suggesting the hormonal response following acute exercise can be reproduced throughout the day. Even when energy requirements increase by over 1200 kcal, energy intake over the entire day remains remarkably similar (EX: 2923±802 kcal vs. REST: 2924±1066 kcal). In the absence of a compensatory drive to eat, additional exercise bouts further augment the negative energy balance found during acute exercise. Support or Funding Information This research was funded in part by Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity→French-language works237,207→