Eating Behavior, Food Reward
Conditions
Brief summary
Healthy young males will complete five trials in a randomized crossover counter-balanced order, including three different inter-set rest of resistance exercise in equal training volume, one repeated until failure and sedentary control. During each trial, blood samples will be collected. The investigators hypothesized that different inter-set rest and training volume would affect subjective appetite and energy intake.
Interventions
OTHERshort inter-set rest resistance exercise
Subjects in short inter-set rest trial performed 3 sets per exercise, 7 repetitions with load of 70%-1RM with 60 sec of rest between sets.
OTHERmedium inter-set rest
Subjects in medium inter-set rest trial performed 3 sets per exercise, 7 repetitions with load of 70%-1RM with 120 sec of rest between sets.
OTHERlong inter-set rest
Subjects in long inter-set rest trial performed 3 sets per exercise, 7 repetitions with load of 70%-1RM with 180 sec of rest between sets.
OTHERmedium inter-set rest with failure
Subjects in long inter-set rest trial performed 3 sets per exercise, repeated to failure with load of 70%-1RM with 120 sec of rest between sets.
Sponsors
National Taiwan Normal University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
20 Years to 30 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Age: 20-30 * Healthy male
Exclusion criteria
* No acute or chronic musculoskeletal symptoms * Smoking * Alcohol or drug abuse * Failure to conduct resistance exercise
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective appetite | 4-hour during each study intervention | The appetite perceptions were obtained through a 0-100 mm visual analog scale. The variables assessed included perceptions of hunger (i.e., How hungry do you feel?), satisfaction (i.e., How satisfied do you feel?), fullness (i.e., How full do you feel?), prospective food consumption (i.e., How much do you think you can eat?), and nausea (i.e., How nauseous do you feel?), with 0 indicating not at all and 100 signifying extremely.. |
| Change in acyl-Ghrelin | 4-hour during each study intervention | acyl-Ghrelin in pg/mL |
| Change in total-Ghrelin | 4-hour during each study intervention | total-Ghrelin in pg/mL |
| Change in PYY | 4-hour during each study intervention | PYY in pg/mL |
| Change in active-GLP-1 | 4-hour during each study intervention | active-GLP-1 in pg/mL |
| Change in total-GLP-1 | 4-hour during each study intervention | total-GLP-1 in pg/mL |
| Change in lactate | 4-hour during each study intervention | insulin in mmol/L |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in TG | 4 hours during each study intervention | TG in mg/dL |
| Explicit liking | 4 hours during each study intervention | A visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 100 mm was utilized to evaluate the question, How pleasant would it be to taste some of this food now? with 0 indicating not at all and 100 signifying extremely. |
| Energy intake | 3 days during each study intervention | Participants are required to record their diet for the day before, the current day, and the day following the experiment. |
| Change in insulin | 4 hours during each study intervention | insulin in mU/L |
| Explicit wanting | 4 hours during each study intervention | A visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 100 mm was utilized to evaluate the question, How much do you want some of this food now? with 0 indicating not at all and 100 signifying extremely. |
| Implicit wanting | 4 hours during each study intervention | Participants were given a set of food image pairs and were asked to select their preference by answering the question, Which food do you desire the most at the moment?. The implicit wanting calculation involved further consideration of response time data based on preference choices using a standardized equation. |
| Relative preference | 4 hours during each study intervention | Participants were given a set of food image pairs and were asked to select their preference by answering the question, Which food do you desire the most at the moment?. The relative preference was the sum of the times each type of food was chosen, with a maximum value of 48 and a minimum value of 0. |
| Fat appeal bias | 4 hours during each study intervention | Fat preference (high or low) was calculated by subtracting the mean low-fat scores from the mean high-fat scores. Positive values suggest a preference for high-fat foods, while negative scores indicate a preference for low-fat or savory foods, and a score of 0 signifies an equal preference between fat content. |
| Taste appeal bias | 4 hours during each study intervention | Taste preference (savoury or sweet) was calculated by subtracting the mean savory scores from the mean sweet scores. Positive values suggest a preference for sweet foods, while negative scores indicate a preference for savory foods, and a score of 0 signifies an equal preference between taste categories. |
| Change in glucose | 4 hours during each study intervention | glucose in mg/dL |
Countries
Taiwan
Outcome results
None listed