PURPOSE: Compensatory responses may attenuate the effectiveness of exercise training in weight management. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of moderate- and high-intensity interval training on eating behavior compensation. METHODS: Using a crossover design, 10 overweight and obese men participated in4-week moderate (MIIT) and high (HIIT) intensity interval training. MIIT consisted of 5-min cycling stages at ± 20% of mechanical work at 45%VO(2)peak, and HIIT consisted of alternate 30-s work at 90%VO(2)peak and 30-s rests, for 30 to 45 min. Assessments included a constant-load exercise test at 45%VO(2)peak for 45 min followed by 60-min recovery. Appetite sensations were measured during the exercise test using a Visual Analog Scale. Food preferences (liking and wanting) were assessed using a computer-based paradigm, and this paradigm uses 20 photographic food stimuli varying along two dimensions, fat (high or low) and taste (sweet or nonsweet). An ad libitum test meal was provided after the constant-load exercise test. RESULTS:Exercise-induced hunger and desire to eat decreased after HIIT, and the difference between MIIT and HIIT in desire to eat approached significance (p = .07). Exercise-induced liking for high-fat nonsweet food tended to increase after MIIT and decreased after HIIT (p = .09). Fat intake decreased by 16% after HIIT, and increased by 38% after MIIT, with the difference between MIIT and HIIT approaching significance (p = .07). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that energy intake compensation differs between MIIT and HIIT.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Compensatory responses may attenuate the effectiveness of exercise training in weight management. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of moderate- and high-intensity interval training on eating behavior compensation. METHODS: Using a crossover design, 10 overweight and obesemen participated in 4-week moderate (MIIT) and high (HIIT) intensity interval training. MIIT consisted of 5-min cycling stages at ± 20% of mechanical work at 45%VO(2)peak, and HIIT consisted of alternate 30-s work at 90%VO(2)peak and 30-s rests, for 30 to 45 min. Assessments included a constant-load exercise test at 45%VO(2)peak for 45 min followed by 60-min recovery. Appetite sensations were measured during the exercise test using a Visual Analog Scale. Food preferences (liking and wanting) were assessed using a computer-based paradigm, and this paradigm uses 20 photographic food stimuli varying along two dimensions, fat (high or low) and taste (sweet or nonsweet). An ad libitum test meal was provided after the constant-load exercise test. RESULTS: Exercise-induced hunger and desire to eat decreased after HIIT, and the difference between MIIT and HIIT in desire to eat approached significance (p = .07). Exercise-induced liking for high-fat nonsweet food tended to increase after MIIT and decreased after HIIT (p = .09). Fat intake decreased by 16% after HIIT, and increased by 38% after MIIT, with the difference between MIIT and HIIT approaching significance (p = .07). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that energy intake compensation differs between MIIT and HIIT.
Authors: Jia Ying Toh; Phaik Ling Quah; Chun Hong Wong; Wen Lun Yuan; Izzuddin M Aris; Keri McCrickerd; Keith M Godfrey; Yap-Seng Chong; Lynette P Shek; Kok Hian Tan; Fabian Yap; Michael J Meaney; Ciarán G Forde; Yung Seng Lee; Birit F P Broekman; Mary F F Chong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jenna Taylor; Shelley E Keating; Michael D Leveritt; David J Holland; Sjaan R Gomersall; Jeff S Coombes Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2017-10-13