Appetite, gut hormone and energy intake responses to low volume sprint interval and traditional endurance exercise.

Sprint interval exercise improves several health markers but the appetite and energy balance response is unknown. This study compared the effects of sprint interval and endurance exercise on appetite, energy intake and gut hormone responses. Twelve healthy males [mean (SD): age 23 (3) years, body mass index 24.2 (2.9) kg m(-2), maximum oxygen uptake 46.3 (10.2) mL kg(-1) min(-1)] completed three 8 h trials [control (CON), endurance exercise (END), sprint interval exercise (SIE)] separated by 1 week. Trials commenced upon completion of a standardised breakfast. Sixty minutes of cycling at 68.1 (4.3) % of maximum oxygen uptake was performed from 1.75-2.75 h in END. Six 30-s Wingate tests were performed from 2.25-2.75 h in SIE. Appetite ratings, acylated ghrelin and peptide YY (PYY) concentrations were measured throughout each trial. Food intake was monitored from buffet meals at 3.5 and 7 h and an overnight food bag. Appetite (P 0.05). Therefore, relative energy intake (energy intake minus the net energy expenditure of exercise) was lower in END than that in CON (15.7 %; P = 0.006) and SIE (11.5 %; P = 0.082). An acute bout of endurance exercise resulted in lower appetite perceptions in the hours after exercise than sprint interval exercise and induced a greater 24 h energy deficit due to higher energy expenditure during exercise

The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross efficiency in cycling

Technique and energy saving are two variables often considered as important for performance in cycling and related to each other. Theoretically, excellent pedalling technique should give high gross efficiency (GE). The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between pedalling technique and GE. 10 well-trained cyclists were measured for GE, force effectiveness (FE) and dead centre size (DC) at a work rate corresponding to ~75% of VO2max during level and inclined cycling, seat adjusted forward and backward, at three different cadences around their own freely chosen cadence (FCC) on an ergometer. Within subjects, FE, DC and GE decreased as cadence increased (p < 0.001). A strong relationship between FE and GE was found, which was to great extent explained by FCC. The relationship between cadence and both FE and GE, within and between subjects, was very similar, irrespective of FCC. There was no difference between level and inclined cycling position. The seat adjustments did not affect FE, DC and GE or the relationship between them. Energy expenditure is strongly coupled to cadence, but force effectiveness, as a measure for pedalling technique, is not likely the cause of this relationship. FE, DC and GE are not affected by body orientation or seat adjustments, indicating that these parameters and the relationship between them are robust to coordinative challenges within a range of cadence, body orientation and seat position that is used in regular cycling