At-home bodyweight interval exercise in the fed versus fasted state lowers postprandial glycemia and appetite perceptions in females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited research has characterized the metabolic health benefits of bodyweight interval exercise (BWE) performed outside of a laboratory setting. Metabolic responses to exercise can also be influenced by meal timing around exercise, but the interactive effects of BWE and nutrition are unknown. This study investigated the effects of BWE performed in the fasted or fed state on postprandial glycemia, post-exercise fat oxidation and appetite perceptions. Twelve females (23 ± 2 years; 22 ± 2 kg/m2) underwent two virtually-monitored trials that involved completing BWE (10 × 1 min, 1 min recovery) 5 min before (FastEX) or beginning BWE 10 min after (FedEX) a standardized breakfast. Heart rate and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured during exercise and capillary glucose concentrations were measured for 2 h postprandial. Following exercise, appetite perceptions were assessed and Lumen expired carbon dioxide percentage (L%CO2) was measured as an index of fat oxidation. Heart rate (85 ± 5%) and RPE (14 ± 2) did not differ between conditions ( p > 0.05). Postprandial glucose mean (6.1 ± 0.6 vs. 6.8 ± 0.8 mmol/L, p = 0.03), peak (7.4 ± 1.2 vs. 8.5 ± 1.5 mmol/L, p = 0.01), and area under the curve (AUC) (758 ± 72 vs. 973 ± 82 mmol/L × 2 h, p = 0.004) were lower in FedEX versus FastEX. Appetite perceptions were lower in FedEX versus FastEX (−87.63 ± 58.51 vs. −42.06 ± 34.96 mm, p = 0.029). Post-exercise L%CO2 was transiently decreased 30 min post-exercise in both conditions (4.03 ± 0.38 vs. 4.29 ± 0.34%, p = 0.0023), reflective of increased fat oxidation following BWE. These findings demonstrate that BWE performed in the fed compared to the fasted state lowered postprandial glycemia and appetite perceptions in females.
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) | 0.003 | 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".