Post-exercise energy intake: do the intensity and mode of exercise matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing high-intensity interval with moderate-intensity continuous protocols
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of exercise intensity and mode (high-intensity interval exercise-HIIE or sprint interval exercise-SIE versus moderate-intensity continuous exercise-MICE) on post-exercise ad libitum energy intake. The studies were required t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of clinical nutrition 2022-07, Vol.76 (7), p.929-942 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 942 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 929 |
| container_title | European journal of clinical nutrition |
| container_volume | 76 |
| creator | Rossi, Priscila Almeida Queiroz Panissa, Valéria Leme Gonçalves Silveira, Rodrigo Takito, Monica Yuri Lima, Fernanda Santos Rossi, Fabrício Eduardo Franchini, Emerson |
| description | The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of exercise intensity and mode (high-intensity interval exercise-HIIE or sprint interval exercise-SIE versus moderate-intensity continuous exercise-MICE) on post-exercise
ad libitum
energy intake. The studies were required to have at least two exercise conditions (HIIE or SIE
vs
MICE). Overall, 642 manuscripts were initially identified and 17 met the eligibility criteria. The random effect meta-analysis did not reveal differences for absolute energy intake (28 pairwise comparisons) between HIIE (
p
= 0.54; 95% Confidence Interval – CI: −0.14 to 0.26; 22 pairwise comparisons) or SIE (
p
= 0.08; 95% CI −0.65 to 0.03; 6 pairwise comparisons) versus MICE, neither for relative energy intake (
p
= 0.97; 95% CI: −0.35 to 0.10 for HIIE;
p
= 0.28; 95% CI: −1.03 to 0.06 for SIE) with five and one pairwise comparisons, respectively. Subgroup analyses for methods to evaluate
ad libitum
energy intake, body mass, sex, volume, and timing of exercise were non-significant. Inspecting each study, two pairwise comparisons reported lower post-exercise absolute energy intake in HIIE compared to control (CRTL), and three pairwise comparisons reported lower absolute energy intake after SIE compared to MICE. None pairwise comparison reported differences between protocols (HIIE or SIE versus MICE) for relative energy intake. In conclusion, the meta-analysis did not show differences between protocols for absolute and relative energy intake; five pairwise comparisons from 28 demonstrated lower absolute energy intake in HIIE or SIE compared to CRTL or MICE. Further studies are needed to address the key relevant variables in which exercise intensity and mode may impact energy intake. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41430-021-01026-w |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2584436645</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2686426473</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-d19f942df34d8101da06895d2f599ef7933cab97fa7fd62efc8411ad937b2ae23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc2OFCEUhYnROO3oC7gwJG5mg_JXUOXGTCb-JZPoQtcVGi7djFVFC_S09XS-mvTUOGNcuIIbvnMOcBB6zugrRkX7OksmBSWUM0IZ5YocHqAVk1qRRkn6EK1o10giKNUn6EnOV5TWQ80foxMhlW4kFSv060vMhcBPSDZkwDBB2sw4TMV8hzfYRVy2cBxhyqHM2EwOj9EBjh7fiUZTCqS3-BznOReoY7A4wXWAwyKAYoiZzDDnkLGN486kMG3wNmy25N77uEvXZsCHULY3KckU-AuwcSph2sd9xrsUS7RxyE_RI2-GDM9u11P07f27rxcfyeXnD58uzi-JFbopxLHOd5I7L6RrGWXOUNV2jeO-6TrwuhPCmnWnvdHeKQ7etpIx4zqh19wAF6fobPGtyT_2kEs_hmxhGMwE9UI9b1ophVKyqejLf9CruE_1-ZVSrZJcSS0qxRfKpphzAt_vUhhNmntG-2O9_VJvX-vtb-rtD1X04tZ6vx7B3Un-9FkBsQB5d_xiSPfZ_7H9DSpxtnM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2686426473</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Post-exercise energy intake: do the intensity and mode of exercise matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing high-intensity interval with moderate-intensity continuous protocols</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink</source><creator>Rossi, Priscila Almeida Queiroz ; Panissa, Valéria Leme Gonçalves ; Silveira, Rodrigo ; Takito, Monica Yuri ; Lima, Fernanda Santos ; Rossi, Fabrício Eduardo ; Franchini, Emerson</creator><creatorcontrib>Rossi, Priscila Almeida Queiroz ; Panissa, Valéria Leme Gonçalves ; Silveira, Rodrigo ; Takito, Monica Yuri ; Lima, Fernanda Santos ; Rossi, Fabrício Eduardo ; Franchini, Emerson</creatorcontrib><description>The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of exercise intensity and mode (high-intensity interval exercise-HIIE or sprint interval exercise-SIE versus moderate-intensity continuous exercise-MICE) on post-exercise
ad libitum
energy intake. The studies were required to have at least two exercise conditions (HIIE or SIE
vs
MICE). Overall, 642 manuscripts were initially identified and 17 met the eligibility criteria. The random effect meta-analysis did not reveal differences for absolute energy intake (28 pairwise comparisons) between HIIE (
p
= 0.54; 95% Confidence Interval – CI: −0.14 to 0.26; 22 pairwise comparisons) or SIE (
p
= 0.08; 95% CI −0.65 to 0.03; 6 pairwise comparisons) versus MICE, neither for relative energy intake (
p
= 0.97; 95% CI: −0.35 to 0.10 for HIIE;
p
= 0.28; 95% CI: −1.03 to 0.06 for SIE) with five and one pairwise comparisons, respectively. Subgroup analyses for methods to evaluate
ad libitum
energy intake, body mass, sex, volume, and timing of exercise were non-significant. Inspecting each study, two pairwise comparisons reported lower post-exercise absolute energy intake in HIIE compared to control (CRTL), and three pairwise comparisons reported lower absolute energy intake after SIE compared to MICE. None pairwise comparison reported differences between protocols (HIIE or SIE versus MICE) for relative energy intake. In conclusion, the meta-analysis did not show differences between protocols for absolute and relative energy intake; five pairwise comparisons from 28 demonstrated lower absolute energy intake in HIIE or SIE compared to CRTL or MICE. Further studies are needed to address the key relevant variables in which exercise intensity and mode may impact energy intake.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0954-3007</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5640</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41430-021-01026-w</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34675403</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>631/443/319/1488 ; 692/700/2817 ; Body mass ; Clinical Nutrition ; Confidence intervals ; Energy ; Energy Intake ; Epidemiology ; Exercise ; Exercise intensity ; High-Intensity Interval Training - methods ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Metabolic Diseases ; Public Health ; Review Article ; Subgroups ; Systematic review ; Systematic Reviews as Topic</subject><ispartof>European journal of clinical nutrition, 2022-07, Vol.76 (7), p.929-942</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-d19f942df34d8101da06895d2f599ef7933cab97fa7fd62efc8411ad937b2ae23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-d19f942df34d8101da06895d2f599ef7933cab97fa7fd62efc8411ad937b2ae23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0164-548X ; 0000-0001-7102-7452</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1038/s41430-021-01026-w$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1038/s41430-021-01026-w$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34675403$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rossi, Priscila Almeida Queiroz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panissa, Valéria Leme Gonçalves</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silveira, Rodrigo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takito, Monica Yuri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima, Fernanda Santos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rossi, Fabrício Eduardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franchini, Emerson</creatorcontrib><title>Post-exercise energy intake: do the intensity and mode of exercise matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing high-intensity interval with moderate-intensity continuous protocols</title><title>European journal of clinical nutrition</title><addtitle>Eur J Clin Nutr</addtitle><addtitle>Eur J Clin Nutr</addtitle><description>The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of exercise intensity and mode (high-intensity interval exercise-HIIE or sprint interval exercise-SIE versus moderate-intensity continuous exercise-MICE) on post-exercise
ad libitum
energy intake. The studies were required to have at least two exercise conditions (HIIE or SIE
vs
MICE). Overall, 642 manuscripts were initially identified and 17 met the eligibility criteria. The random effect meta-analysis did not reveal differences for absolute energy intake (28 pairwise comparisons) between HIIE (
p
= 0.54; 95% Confidence Interval – CI: −0.14 to 0.26; 22 pairwise comparisons) or SIE (
p
= 0.08; 95% CI −0.65 to 0.03; 6 pairwise comparisons) versus MICE, neither for relative energy intake (
p
= 0.97; 95% CI: −0.35 to 0.10 for HIIE;
p
= 0.28; 95% CI: −1.03 to 0.06 for SIE) with five and one pairwise comparisons, respectively. Subgroup analyses for methods to evaluate
ad libitum
energy intake, body mass, sex, volume, and timing of exercise were non-significant. Inspecting each study, two pairwise comparisons reported lower post-exercise absolute energy intake in HIIE compared to control (CRTL), and three pairwise comparisons reported lower absolute energy intake after SIE compared to MICE. None pairwise comparison reported differences between protocols (HIIE or SIE versus MICE) for relative energy intake. In conclusion, the meta-analysis did not show differences between protocols for absolute and relative energy intake; five pairwise comparisons from 28 demonstrated lower absolute energy intake in HIIE or SIE compared to CRTL or MICE. Further studies are needed to address the key relevant variables in which exercise intensity and mode may impact energy intake.</description><subject>631/443/319/1488</subject><subject>692/700/2817</subject><subject>Body mass</subject><subject>Clinical Nutrition</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Energy Intake</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Exercise intensity</subject><subject>High-Intensity Interval Training - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Metabolic Diseases</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Systematic Reviews as Topic</subject><issn>0954-3007</issn><issn>1476-5640</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc2OFCEUhYnROO3oC7gwJG5mg_JXUOXGTCb-JZPoQtcVGi7djFVFC_S09XS-mvTUOGNcuIIbvnMOcBB6zugrRkX7OksmBSWUM0IZ5YocHqAVk1qRRkn6EK1o10giKNUn6EnOV5TWQ80foxMhlW4kFSv060vMhcBPSDZkwDBB2sw4TMV8hzfYRVy2cBxhyqHM2EwOj9EBjh7fiUZTCqS3-BznOReoY7A4wXWAwyKAYoiZzDDnkLGN486kMG3wNmy25N77uEvXZsCHULY3KckU-AuwcSph2sd9xrsUS7RxyE_RI2-GDM9u11P07f27rxcfyeXnD58uzi-JFbopxLHOd5I7L6RrGWXOUNV2jeO-6TrwuhPCmnWnvdHeKQ7etpIx4zqh19wAF6fobPGtyT_2kEs_hmxhGMwE9UI9b1ophVKyqejLf9CruE_1-ZVSrZJcSS0qxRfKpphzAt_vUhhNmntG-2O9_VJvX-vtb-rtD1X04tZ6vx7B3Un-9FkBsQB5d_xiSPfZ_7H9DSpxtnM</recordid><startdate>20220701</startdate><enddate>20220701</enddate><creator>Rossi, Priscila Almeida Queiroz</creator><creator>Panissa, Valéria Leme Gonçalves</creator><creator>Silveira, Rodrigo</creator><creator>Takito, Monica Yuri</creator><creator>Lima, Fernanda Santos</creator><creator>Rossi, Fabrício Eduardo</creator><creator>Franchini, Emerson</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0164-548X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7102-7452</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220701</creationdate><title>Post-exercise energy intake: do the intensity and mode of exercise matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing high-intensity interval with moderate-intensity continuous protocols</title><author>Rossi, Priscila Almeida Queiroz ; Panissa, Valéria Leme Gonçalves ; Silveira, Rodrigo ; Takito, Monica Yuri ; Lima, Fernanda Santos ; Rossi, Fabrício Eduardo ; Franchini, Emerson</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-d19f942df34d8101da06895d2f599ef7933cab97fa7fd62efc8411ad937b2ae23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>631/443/319/1488</topic><topic>692/700/2817</topic><topic>Body mass</topic><topic>Clinical Nutrition</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Energy Intake</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Exercise intensity</topic><topic>High-Intensity Interval Training - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Metabolic Diseases</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Systematic Reviews as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rossi, Priscila Almeida Queiroz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panissa, Valéria Leme Gonçalves</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silveira, Rodrigo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takito, Monica Yuri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima, Fernanda Santos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rossi, Fabrício Eduardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franchini, Emerson</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medicine (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of clinical nutrition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rossi, Priscila Almeida Queiroz</au><au>Panissa, Valéria Leme Gonçalves</au><au>Silveira, Rodrigo</au><au>Takito, Monica Yuri</au><au>Lima, Fernanda Santos</au><au>Rossi, Fabrício Eduardo</au><au>Franchini, Emerson</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Post-exercise energy intake: do the intensity and mode of exercise matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing high-intensity interval with moderate-intensity continuous protocols</atitle><jtitle>European journal of clinical nutrition</jtitle><stitle>Eur J Clin Nutr</stitle><addtitle>Eur J Clin Nutr</addtitle><date>2022-07-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>929</spage><epage>942</epage><pages>929-942</pages><issn>0954-3007</issn><eissn>1476-5640</eissn><abstract>The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of exercise intensity and mode (high-intensity interval exercise-HIIE or sprint interval exercise-SIE versus moderate-intensity continuous exercise-MICE) on post-exercise
ad libitum
energy intake. The studies were required to have at least two exercise conditions (HIIE or SIE
vs
MICE). Overall, 642 manuscripts were initially identified and 17 met the eligibility criteria. The random effect meta-analysis did not reveal differences for absolute energy intake (28 pairwise comparisons) between HIIE (
p
= 0.54; 95% Confidence Interval – CI: −0.14 to 0.26; 22 pairwise comparisons) or SIE (
p
= 0.08; 95% CI −0.65 to 0.03; 6 pairwise comparisons) versus MICE, neither for relative energy intake (
p
= 0.97; 95% CI: −0.35 to 0.10 for HIIE;
p
= 0.28; 95% CI: −1.03 to 0.06 for SIE) with five and one pairwise comparisons, respectively. Subgroup analyses for methods to evaluate
ad libitum
energy intake, body mass, sex, volume, and timing of exercise were non-significant. Inspecting each study, two pairwise comparisons reported lower post-exercise absolute energy intake in HIIE compared to control (CRTL), and three pairwise comparisons reported lower absolute energy intake after SIE compared to MICE. None pairwise comparison reported differences between protocols (HIIE or SIE versus MICE) for relative energy intake. In conclusion, the meta-analysis did not show differences between protocols for absolute and relative energy intake; five pairwise comparisons from 28 demonstrated lower absolute energy intake in HIIE or SIE compared to CRTL or MICE. Further studies are needed to address the key relevant variables in which exercise intensity and mode may impact energy intake.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>34675403</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41430-021-01026-w</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0164-548X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7102-7452</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0954-3007 |
| ispartof | European journal of clinical nutrition, 2022-07, Vol.76 (7), p.929-942 |
| issn | 0954-3007 1476-5640 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2584436645 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink |
| subjects | 631/443/319/1488 692/700/2817 Body mass Clinical Nutrition Confidence intervals Energy Energy Intake Epidemiology Exercise Exercise intensity High-Intensity Interval Training - methods Humans Internal Medicine Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Metabolic Diseases Public Health Review Article Subgroups Systematic review Systematic Reviews as Topic |
| title | Post-exercise energy intake: do the intensity and mode of exercise matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing high-intensity interval with moderate-intensity continuous protocols |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T15%3A01%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Post-exercise%20energy%20intake:%20do%20the%20intensity%20and%20mode%20of%20exercise%20matter?%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis%20comparing%20high-intensity%20interval%20with%20moderate-intensity%20continuous%20protocols&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20clinical%20nutrition&rft.au=Rossi,%20Priscila%20Almeida%20Queiroz&rft.date=2022-07-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=929&rft.epage=942&rft.pages=929-942&rft.issn=0954-3007&rft.eissn=1476-5640&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41430-021-01026-w&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2686426473%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2686426473&rft_id=info:pmid/34675403&rfr_iscdi=true |