MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401536495 · doi:10.1186/s13102-024-00959-6

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

2024· article· en· W4401536495 on OpenAlexaff
Yavelberg Loren, G. Norman, J. Koroma Veronica

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDietary Effects on Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialTime trialMedicineInternal medicineAnimal sciencePhysical therapyEndocrinologyChemistryBiologyHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Sports Science Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicDietary Effects on HealthFrench-language works237,207