The acute effect of time-restricted feeding (12 & 16 h) and varying exercise intensities on fat-oxidation rate in inactive young adults – a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time-restricted feeding (TRF) is a dietary pattern that alternates between periods of fasting and feeding, which has gained significant attention in recent years. The 16/8 approach consists of fasting for 16 h and feeding for an 8-h window, while the 12/12 method consists of fasting for 12 h and a 12-h feeding window. Limited research exists comparing the effects of these methods coupled with physical activity (PA). The aim of this investigation was to examine the acute effects between conditions of varying TRF durations (12 and 16 h) and PA intensities on the fat oxidation rate (FOR). It was hypothesized that i) the TRF16 conditions would exhibit higher FOR max and that PA would enhance these effects, and ii) High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) would result in greater effects on FOR max compared to Low-Moderate Intensity Steady State Continuous Training (MICT) PA. Eighteen young adults (age: 23 ± 2.0 yrs., body mass index: 23.5 ± 2.8 kg·m −2 ) were recruited and participated in the supervised intervention. The discrete component open circuit spirometry system was used to measure oxygen consumption (VO 2 ), and Frayne’s equation was used to determine the FOR plus FOR max . ANOVA was used to determine pre/post-intervention differences in FOR max. The FORmax for the TRF16 + HIIT intervention was significantly higher than the TRF12 (mean difference = 0.099 g·min-1, p = 0.011, 95% CI 0.017 to 0.180) and TRF16 fast alone (mean difference = 0.093 g·min-1, p = 0.002, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.159). The FOR max for TRF12 + HIIT intervention was significantly higher than the TRF12 fast alone (mean difference = 0.070 g·min −1 , p = 0.023, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.134). The TRF16 + HIIT intervention was also significantly higher than the TRF12 fast alone (mean difference = 0.099 g·min −1 , p = 0.011, 95% CI 0.017 to 0.180). This study contributes to the ever-growing body of literature on the acute effects of TRF and PA on young adult males and females. The findings suggest that the TRF16 + HIIT PA intervention results in the highest FOR max . Retrospective Registration ISRCTN # 10076373 (October 6, 2023).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".