Aerobic exercise elevates perceived appetite but does not modify energy intake over a 3‐day postexercise period: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While a low degree of energy compensation is typically reported over the 24 h following a session of exercise, the prolonged impact of a bout of exercise on energy intake remains unclear. To overcome the challenge associated with accurately measuring energy intake in a free‐living environment, this study employed the use of a meal replacement beverage to assess the 3 day impact of an exercise session on energy intake. In a randomized, crossover study, 14 participants (8 male, 6 female) completed two trials: (1) EX: 75 min exercise on a motorized treadmill (75% VO2peak); and (2) SED: 75 min sedentary control session. Each condition was followed by 3 days of exclusive ad libitum consumption of a meal replacement beverage. Appetite‐regulating hormones, subjective appetite, energy intake, and energy expenditure were assessed. Exercise transiently suppressed the orexigenic hormone acyl‐ghrelin (p < 0.05) and elevated the appetite‐supressing hepatokine GDF‐15 (p < 0.05). Despite these acute changes, overall perceived appetite was elevated over the 3 day assessment period with exercise (p < 0.05). No increase in energy intake or change in postexercise physical activity patterns were observed. One acute session of moderate to vigorous exercise is unlikely to affect short‐term, three‐day energy balance in healthy individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".