Article

High-intensity intermittent exercise attenuates ad-libitum energy intake.

School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
International journal of obesity (2005) (Impact Factor: 5.39). 06/2013; DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2013.102
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objective:To examine the acute effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) on energy intake, perceptions of appetite and appetite-related hormones in sedentary, overweight men.Design:Seventeen overweight men (body mass index: 27.7±1.6 kg m(-2); body mass: 89.8±10.1 kg; body fat: 30.0±4.3%; VO2peak: 39.2±4.8 ml kg(-1) min(-1)) completed four 30-min experimental conditions using a randomised counterbalanced design. CON: resting control, MC: continuous moderate-intensity exercise (60% VO2peak), HI: high-intensity intermittent exercise (alternating 60 s at 100% VO2peak and 240 s at 50% VO2peak), VHI: very-high-intensity intermittent exercise (alternating 15 s at 170% VO2peak and 60 s at 32% VO2peak). Participants consumed a standard caloric meal following exercise/CON and an ad-libitum meal 70 min later. Capillary blood was sampled and perceived appetite assessed at regular time intervals throughout the session. Free-living energy intake and physical activity levels for the experimental day and the day after were also assessed.Results:Ad-libitum energy intake was lower after HI and VHI compared with CON (P=0.038 and P=0.004, respectively), and VHI was also lower than MC (P=0.028). Free-living energy intake in the subsequent 38 h remained less after VHI compared with CON and MC (P0.050). These observations were associated with lower active ghrelin (P0.050), higher blood lactate (P0.014) and higher blood glucose (P0.020) after VHI compared with all other trials. Despite higher heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during HI and VHI compared with MC (P0.004), ratings of physical activity enjoyment were similar between all the exercise trials (P=0.593). No differences were found in perceived appetite between trials.Conclusions:High-intensity intermittent exercise suppresses subsequent ad-libitum energy intake in overweight inactive men. This format of exercise was found to be well tolerated in an overweight population.International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 9 July 2013; doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.102.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Karen E Wallman, Aug 02, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
207 Views
  • Source
    • "Recent studies on SIE (six 30-s Wingate tests) in young healthy men (Deighton et al. 2013) and high-intensity interval exercise (1046 kJ of 8-s " all out " intervals interspersed with 12 s of recovery) in overweight/obese sedentary individuals (Martins et al. 2014) found no impact on energy intake, supporting the results from a meta-analysis suggesting that acute exercise (up to 81% maximal oxygen consumption (V ˙ O 2max )) has little effect on subsequent energy intake (Schubert et al. 2013). Contradictory to these results, Sim et al. (2014) observed a lower energy intake in overweight sedentary men shortly following 2 distinct 30- min cycling protocols of 60-s intervals at 100% peak oxygen consumption (V ˙ O 2peak ) and 15-s intervals at 170% V ˙ O 2peak compared with rest, in addition to food records indicating a lower 48-h energy intake in the 15-s interval protocol compared with rest and 30-min of continuous exercise at 60% V ˙ O 2peak . Unfortunately, none of these studies assessed energy intake prior to the high-intensity interval exercise, which may be reduced in anticipation of the very intense exercise to be performed (Westerterp-Plantenga et al. 1997). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A cumulative effect of reduced energy intake, increased oxygen consumption, and/or increased lipid oxidation could explain the fat loss associated with sprint interval exercise training (SIT). This study assessed the effects of acute sprint interval exercise (SIE) on energy intake, subjective appetite, appetite-related peptides, oxygen consumption, and respiratory exchange ratio over 2 days. Eight men (25 ± 3 years, 79.6 ± 9.7 kg, body fat 13% ± 6%; mean ± SD) completed 2 experimental treatments: SIE and recovery (SIEx) and nonexercise control. Each 34-h treatment consisted of 2 consecutive 10-h test days. Between 0800-1800 h, participants remained in the laboratory for 8 breath-by-breath gas collections, 3 buffet-type meals, 14 appetite ratings, and 4 blood samples for appetite-related peptides. Treatment comparisons were made using 2-way repeated measures ANOVA or t tests. An immediate, albeit short-lived (<1 h), postexercise suppression of appetite and increase in peptide YY (PYY) were observed (P < 0.001). However, overall hunger and motivation to eat were greater during SIEx (P < 0.02) without affecting energy intake. Total 34-h oxygen consumption was greater during SIEx (P = 0.04), elicited by the 1491-kJ (22%) greater energy expenditure over the first 24 h (P = 0.01). Despite its effects on oxygen consumption, appetite, and PYY, acute SIE did not affect energy intake. Consequently, if these dietary responses to SIE are sustained with regular SIT, augmentations in oxygen consumption and/or a substrate shift toward increased fat use postexercise are most likely responsible for the observed body fat loss with this type of exercise training.
    Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism 10/2014; DOI:10.1139/apnm-2014-0229 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Our dietary intake records indicate no pre-to post-treatment change in overall energy, protein, fat, and (or) carbohydrate intake , so it appears that the observed fat losses were not caused by obvious decreases in energy or macronutrient intake, although food record data can be inaccurate (Yang et al. 2010). Recent HIT studies suggest that appetite suppression may be involved (Boutcher 2011; Sim et al. 2013; Williams et al. 2013), so more detailed assessments of the effects of SIT on food intake (especially on exercising days) are needed before a definite conclusion on its effects on appetite can be drawn. Regardless, it is reasonable to assume that the combination of a low-energy diet and SIT would promote even greater fat loss. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data on whether sprint interval training (SIT) (repeated supermaximal intensity, short-duration exercise) affects body composition are limited, and the data that are available suggest that men respond more favourably than do women. Moreover, most SIT data involve cycling exercise, and running may differ because of the larger muscle mass involved. Further, running is a more universal exercise type. This study assessed whether running SIT can alter body composition (air displacement plethysmography), waist circumference, maximal oxygen consumption, peak running speed, and (or) the blood lipid profile. Fifteen recreationally active women (age, 22.9 ± 3.6 years; height, 163.9 ± 5.1 cm; mass, 60.8 ± 5.2 kg) completed 6 weeks of running SIT (4 to 6, 30-s "all-out" sprints on a self-propelled treadmill separated by 4 min of rest performed 3 times per week). Training decreased body fat mass by 8.0% (15.1 ± 3.6 to 13.9 ± 3.4 kg, P = 0.002) and waist circumference by 3.5% (80.1 ± 4.2 to 77.3 ± 4.4 cm, P = 0.048), whereas it increased fat-free mass by 1.3% (45.7 ± 3.5 to 46.3 ± 2.9 kg, P = 0.05), maximal oxygen consumption by 8.7% (46 ± 5 to 50 ± 6 mL/(kg·min), P = 0.004), and peak running speed by 4.8% (16.6 ± 1.7 to 17.4 ± 1.4 km/h, P = 0.026). There were no differences in food intake assessed by 3-day food records (P > 0.329) or in blood lipids (P > 0.595), except for a slight decrease in high-density lipoprotein concentration (1.34 ± 0.28 to 1.24 ± 0.24 mmol/L, P = 0.034). Running SIT is a time-efficient strategy for decreasing body fat while increasing aerobic capacity, peak running speed, and fat-free mass in healthy young women.
    Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism 03/2014; 39(8):1-7. DOI:10.1139/apnm-2013-0503 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • International journal of obesity (2005) 09/2013; 38(5). DOI:10.1038/ijo.2013.167 · 5.39 Impact Factor
Show more