Cross-sectional analysis reveals reallocating sedentary time to physical activity increases energy intake, suggesting physiological influences on appetite.
Background: Physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep are interdependent components of the 24 h movement profile that may influence appetite control. While acute exercise can alter appetite perceptions and food reward, less is known about how reallocating time between daily behaviours affects appetite outcomes under free-living conditions. Methods: We applied isotemporal-substitution modelling in a cross-sectional study of 130 young, healthy, active adults. Accelerometer-derived estimates of sedentary time, light physical activity (LPA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and sleep were analysed in relation to energy intake (food diaries, laboratory meals), subjective appetite perceptions, appetite-related hormones (acylated ghrelin, PYY, leptin), and psychological traits, including food reward (Leeds Food Preference Questionnaire, LFPQ), food cravings (Control of Eating Questionnaire, CoEQ), and eating behaviour traits (Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire, TFEQ). Results: Reallocating 30 min/day of sedentary time to MVPA was associated with higher energy intake in free-living (+113 kcal/day, 95% CI: 34–192) and laboratory settings (+120 kcal/day, 95% CI: 55–185), along with greater postprandial hunger and prospective food consumption, reduced fullness, elevated fasting acylated ghrelin, and lower postprandial PYY. No associations were observed for reallocations to LPA or sleep. Furthermore, sedentary time reallocations were unrelated to leptin or psychological eating traits assessed by the LFPQ, CoEQ, or TFEQ. Conclusions: In this population, reallocating sedentary time to MVPA was linked to physiological and behavioural compensation consistent with elevated energy demands, whereas reallocating to LPA or sleep showed no associations. Trait-level eating behaviours were unaffected, suggesting MVPA influences appetite primarily through acute physiological rather than enduring cognitive or hedonic pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Malaikah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: