Are post-exercise plasma glucose elevations involved in exercise-induced appetite suppression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in glucose and insulin are potentially involved in the appetite-regulatory effects of exercise considering their role post-prandially. The purpose of this study was to examine whether glucose and insulin play a role in post-exercise appetite regulation. Twelve participants ( M = 8; 26 ± 5 years) completed 3 experimental sessions in a systematically rotated randomized crossover design: (1) no-exercise control (CTRL); (2) moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT; 30 min, 70% maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O2max)); and (3) sprint interval training (SIT; 4 × 30 s “all-out” sprints, interspersed with 4 min rest). Plasma glucose, insulin, acylated ghrelin, active peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY), active glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and overall appetite perceptions were measured pre-exercise, 0, 30, 60, and 120 min post-exercise. Energy intake was recorded the day before, of, and after experimental sessions. Glucose was elevated 0 min post-exercise ( p < 0.097, d > 0.52) compared to CTRL with no differences between exercise bouts. Acylated ghrelin was suppressed by MICT (60, 120 min) and SIT (0, 30, 60, 120 min; p < 0.080, d > 0.56) compared to CTRL, while also suppressed in SIT compared to MICT at 30, 60, 120 min ( p < 0.026, d > 0.74). GLP-1 was elevated following MICT (0, 30, and 60 min) and SIT (60 min; p < 0.094, d > 0.53) compared to CTRL and following MICT compared to SIT (0 min; p = 0.005, d = 1.03). Overall appetite was suppressed by SIT post-exercise ( p < 0.058, d > 0.61) compared to CTRL and MICT, and by MICT 0 min post-exercise compared to CTRL ( p = 0.036, d = 0.71). There were no exercise effects on insulin, PYY, or free-living energy intake ( p > 0.217, ηp 2 < 0.130). Glucose and insulin do not appear to play a role in exercise-induced appetite suppression.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".