European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026
Acute appetite and gut-hormone responses to two combined training sessions: a randomized crossover study in men with obesity.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Nan, Wu Min, Li Yanchun, Yang Xiangang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This randomized crossover study compared acute appetite-related, gut-hormone, and energy-intake responses between moderate-intensity resistance plus aerobic training (RAT) and high-intensity functional plus aerobic training (FAT) in males with obesity.
METHODS: Twenty-one men with obesity completed both protocols in a randomized crossover design. Subjective appetite was assessed using a visual analogue scale, and insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1, and peptide YY (PYY) were measured pre-, post-, and 1 h post-exercise. Energy intake was recorded during subsequent meals and over 2 days.
RESULTS: PYY responses differed between conditions over time, with a significant condition × time interaction (P = 0.015). At 1 h post-exercise, PYY concentrations were higher after RAT than after FAT (ratio = 1.69, 95% CI 1.26-2.27; adjusted P < 0.001). PYY AUC was higher in RAT than in FAT (ratio [RAT/FAT] = 1.44; P = 0.016). Fullness AUC was lower after RAT than after FAT, whereas prospective food consumption AUC was higher after RAT than after FAT (Δ [RAT - FAT] = -670.0 and 701.4 mm·120 min; P = 0.014 and P = 0.016, respectively). No between-condition differences were observed in energy intake on the trial day or the following day.
CONCLUSION: Varying the resistance component within combined exercise may elicit distinct acute hormonal and perceptual appetite responses in young men with obesity, without altering short-term energy intake. These findings should be interpreted as comparative responses between RAT and FAT rather than exercise-induced effects per se.
METHODS: Twenty-one men with obesity completed both protocols in a randomized crossover design. Subjective appetite was assessed using a visual analogue scale, and insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1, and peptide YY (PYY) were measured pre-, post-, and 1 h post-exercise. Energy intake was recorded during subsequent meals and over 2 days.
RESULTS: PYY responses differed between conditions over time, with a significant condition × time interaction (P = 0.015). At 1 h post-exercise, PYY concentrations were higher after RAT than after FAT (ratio = 1.69, 95% CI 1.26-2.27; adjusted P < 0.001). PYY AUC was higher in RAT than in FAT (ratio [RAT/FAT] = 1.44; P = 0.016). Fullness AUC was lower after RAT than after FAT, whereas prospective food consumption AUC was higher after RAT than after FAT (Δ [RAT - FAT] = -670.0 and 701.4 mm·120 min; P = 0.014 and P = 0.016, respectively). No between-condition differences were observed in energy intake on the trial day or the following day.
CONCLUSION: Varying the resistance component within combined exercise may elicit distinct acute hormonal and perceptual appetite responses in young men with obesity, without altering short-term energy intake. These findings should be interpreted as comparative responses between RAT and FAT rather than exercise-induced effects per se.