The appetite-regulatory response to an acute session of high-intensity interval training in pre-menopausal and post-menopausal females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex hormones may affect the appetite response to exercise, and menopause, characterized by their withdrawal provides an opportunity to explore their role in appetite regulation. Therefore, this study compared the appetite-regulatory response to a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session in pre- and post-menopausal females. Post-menopausal females (n=11; 58±2 y) completed one HIIT (10 ×1 min at 90% heart rate maximum with 1 min rest) and one no-exercise control (CTRL) session (study 1), while pre-menopausal females (n=11; 44±4 y) completed the same HIIT session in the LP and were compared to the post-menopausal HIIT session (study 2). Acylated ghrelin, active glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), lactate, and subjective appetite perceptions were measured across 4 timepoints. Energy intake was assessed for a 2-day period (day before, day of). In study 1, there was a main effect of group where acylated ghrelin was lower following HIIT versus CTRL (P=0.011, η p 2 =0.534) coinciding with a lower area under the curve (P=0.007, d =0.57), with no between-session differences in other appetite-regulatory markers (P>0.432, η p 2 <0.063). In study 2, acylated ghrelin was greater in pre- versus post-menopausal at 30- and 90-min post-exercise (P<0.081, d >0.66) with no differences in other appetite-regulatory parameters between groups (P>0.319, η p 2 <0.103), though lactate immediately post-exercise was ~2.25 mmol·L -1 in post-menopausal, and ~0.93 mmol·L -1 in pre-menopausal females which is lower than previously reported in other populations. These data support the potential role of sex hormones in blunting the exercise-induced suppression of acylated ghrelin, though no effect on anorexigenic hormones, appetite perceptions, or energy intake was present.
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) | 0.002 | 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".