UNLABELLED: It is often reported that females lose less body weight than males do in response to exercise. These differences are suggested to be a result of females exhibiting a stronger defense of body fat and a greater compensatory appetite response to exercise than males do. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effect of a 12-wk supervised exercise program on body weight, body composition, appetite, and energy intake in males and females. METHODS: A total of 107 overweight and obese adults (males = 35, premenopausal females = 72, BMI = 31.4 ± 4.2 kg·m(-2), age = 40.9 ± 9.2 yr) completed asupervised 12-wk exercise program expending approximately 10.5 MJ·wk(-1) at 70% HRmax. Body composition, energy intake, appetite ratings, RMR, and cardiovascular fitness were measured at weeks 0 and 12. RESULTS: The 12-wk exercise program led to significant reductions in body mass (males [M] = -3.03 ± 3.4 kg and females [F] = -2.28 ± 3.1 kg), fat mass (M = -3.14 ± 3.7 kg and F = -3.01 ± 3.0 kg), and percent body fat (M = -2.45% ± 3.3% and F = -2.45% ± 2.2%; all P < 0.0001), but there were no sex-based differences (P > 0.05). There were no significant changes in daily energy intake in males or females after theexercise intervention compared with baseline (M = 199.2 ± 2418.1 kJ and F = -131.6 ± 1912.0 kJ, P > 0.05). Fasting hunger levels significantly increased after the intervention compared with baseline values (M = 11.0 ± 21.1 min and F = 14.0 ± 22.9 mm, P < 0.0001), but there were no differences between males and females (P > 0.05). The exercise also improved satiety responses to an individualized fixed-energy breakfast (P < 0.0001). This was comparable in males and females. CONCLUSIONS:Males and premenopausal females did not differ in their response to a 12-wk exercise intervention and achieved similar reductions in body fat. When exercise interventions are supervised and energy expenditure is controlled, there are no sex-based differences in the measured compensatory response to exercise.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: It is often reported that females lose less body weight than males do in response to exercise. These differences are suggested to be a result of females exhibiting a stronger defense of body fat and a greater compensatory appetite response to exercise than males do. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effect of a 12-wk supervised exercise program on body weight, body composition, appetite, and energy intake in males and females. METHODS: A total of 107 overweight and obese adults (males = 35, premenopausal females = 72, BMI = 31.4 ± 4.2 kg·m(-2), age = 40.9 ± 9.2 yr) completed a supervised 12-wk exercise program expending approximately 10.5 MJ·wk(-1) at 70% HRmax. Body composition, energy intake, appetite ratings, RMR, and cardiovascular fitness were measured at weeks 0 and 12. RESULTS: The 12-wk exercise program led to significant reductions in body mass (males [M] = -3.03 ± 3.4 kg and females [F] = -2.28 ± 3.1 kg), fat mass (M = -3.14 ± 3.7 kg and F = -3.01 ± 3.0 kg), and percent body fat (M = -2.45% ± 3.3% and F = -2.45% ± 2.2%; all P < 0.0001), but there were no sex-based differences (P > 0.05). There were no significant changes in daily energy intake in males or females after the exercise intervention compared with baseline (M = 199.2 ± 2418.1 kJ and F = -131.6 ± 1912.0 kJ, P > 0.05). Fasting hunger levels significantly increased after the intervention compared with baseline values (M = 11.0 ± 21.1 min and F = 14.0 ± 22.9 mm, P < 0.0001), but there were no differences between males and females (P > 0.05). The exercise also improved satiety responses to an individualized fixed-energy breakfast (P < 0.0001). This was comparable in males and females. CONCLUSIONS: Males and premenopausal females did not differ in their response to a 12-wk exercise intervention and achieved similar reductions in body fat. When exercise interventions are supervised and energy expenditure is controlled, there are no sex-based differences in the measured compensatory response to exercise.
Authors: Joseph E Donnelly; Stephen D Herrmann; Kate Lambourne; Amanda N Szabo; Jeffery J Honas; Richard A Washburn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tom J Hazell; Logan K Townsend; Jillian R Hallworth; Jon Doan; Jennifer L Copeland Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Richard A Washburn; Jeff J Honas; Lauren T Ptomey; Matthew S Mayo; Jaehoon Lee; Debra K Sullivan; Kathleen Lambourne; Erik A Willis; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Lauren T Ptomey; Robert N Montgomery; Anna M Gorczyca; Amanda N Szabo-Reed; Debra K Sullivan; Mary Hastert; Rachel Ns Foster; Richard A Washburn; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 4.125
Authors: Tanya M Halliday; Mollie H White; Allison K Hild; Molly B Conroy; Edward L Melanson; Marc-Andre Cornier Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2021-10-01