Table 2.
Summary of findings.
| Ad libitum meal energy intake | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total studies: 14 | Relative effect (95% CI) | Confidence in evidence | Ranking | Interpretation of findings |
| Total participants: 217 | ||||
| Fasted exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (1 study; 10 participants) | 7 kJ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Unlikely inferior or superior | |
| (−703 to 717 kJ) | Low | 3 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias and imprecisiona | |||
| Fasted exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal (5 studies; 88 participants) | 338 kJ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Probably inferior | |
| (−174 to 850 kJ) | Low | 4 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias, imprecision and heterogeneityb | |||
| Fed exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (6 studies; 93 participants) | −489 kJ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Probably superior | |
| (-898 to -79 kJ) | Low | 1 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias and heterogeneityc | |||
| Fed exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal | Reference comparator | Reference comparator | 2 | Reference comparator |
| Within-lab energy intake | ||||
| Total studies: 14 | Relative effect (95% CI) | Confidence in evidence | Ranking | Interpretation of findings |
| Total participants: 217 | ||||
| Fasted exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (1 study; 10 participants) | −39 kJ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Unlikely inferior or superior | |
| (−1113 to 1035 kJ) | Low | 3 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias and imprecisiona | |||
| Fasted exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal (5 studies; 88 participants) | −1316 kJ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Probably Superior | |
| (−2096 to −536 kJ) | Low | 1 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias and heterogeneityd | |||
| Fed exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (6 studies; 93 participants) | 389 kJ | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | Probably inferior | |
| (−249 to 1028 kJ) | Moderate | 4 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias, imprecision and heterogeneitye | |||
| Fed exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal | Reference comparator | Reference comparator | 2 | Reference comparator |
| 24-h energy intake | ||||
| Total studies: 6 | Relative effect (95% CI) | Confidence in evidence | Ranking | Interpretation of findings |
| Total participants: 83 | ||||
| Fasted exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (1 study; 10 participants) | −161 kJ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Unlikely inferior or superior | |
| (−2120 to 1798 kJ) | Low | 2 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias and imprecisionf | |||
| Fasted exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal (2 studies; 36 participants) | −2095 kJ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Probably superior | |
| (−3910 to −280 kJ) | Low | 1 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias and heterogeneityd | |||
| Fed exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (1 studies; 13 participants) | 680 kJ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Unlikely inferior or superior | |
| (−1194 to 2553 kJ) | Low | 4 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias and imprecisiong | |||
| Fed exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal | Reference comparator | Reference comparator | 3 | Reference comparator |
| Energy expenditure | ||||
| Total studies: 6 | Relative effect (95% CI) | Confidence in evidence | Ranking | Interpretation of findings |
| Total participants: 69 | ||||
| Fasted exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (5 studies; 43 participants) | 0.07 kJ/min | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | Unlikely inferior or superior | |
| (−0.15 to 0.30 kJ/min) | Moderate | 1 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study biash | |||
| Fasted exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal (1 study; 7 participants) | −0.67 kJ/min | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | Probably inferior | |
| (−1.10 to −0.23 kJ/min) | Moderate | 4 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study biash | |||
| Fed exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (0 studies; 0 participants) | 0.08 kJ/min | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ | 2 | Unlikely inferior or superior |
| (−0.66 to 0.81 kJ/min) | High | |||
| Indirect estimate | ||||
| Fed exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal | Reference comparator | Reference comparator | 3 | Reference comparator |
| Subjective hunger | ||||
| Total studies: 11 | Relative effect (95% CI) | Confidence in evidence | Ranking | Interpretation of findings |
| Total participants: 145 | ||||
| Fasted exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (2 studies; 22 participants) | 13 mm | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | Probably inferior | |
| (5 to 21 mm) | Moderate | 3 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias and heterogenityi | |||
| Fasted exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal (4 studies; 58 participants) | 23 mm | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Probably inferior | |
| (16 to 30 mm) | Low | 4 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study biasj | |||
| Fed exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal (2 studies; 27 participants) | −6 mm | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | Probably superior | |
| (−14 to 2 mm) | Low | 1 | ||
| Combined estimate | Due to within-study bias, imprecision and heterogeneityb | |||
| Fed exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal | Reference comparator | Reference comparator | 2 | Reference comparator |
Estimates of effects, 95% confidence intervals, and certainty of the evidence for fasted exercise in healthy individuals
Patient or population: healthy individuals
Interventions: fasted exercise with a standardised post-exercise meal, fasted exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal, fed exercise with a standardised meal
Comparator (reference): fed exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal
Setting: laboratory environment
Summary of findings table definitions
*Estimates are expressed as mean differences. CI: confidence interval.
**Rankings are based on P-scores derived from the network meta-analyses.
***Interpretation of findings is in reference to fed exercise without a standardised post-exercise meal.
Confidence in evidence levels
High: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
Explanatory footnotes
aSome concerns regarding within-study bias (unclear risk of bias in measurement of the outcome) and major concerns regarding imprecision (95% CI extends into clinically important effects in both directions).
bMajor concerns regarding within-study bias (high risk of bias in measurement of the outcome), some concerns regarding imprecision (95% CI extends from clinically important effect to no effect), and some concerns regarding heterogeneity (prediction interval extends into clinically important or unimportant effects).
cSome concerns regarding within-study bias (unclear risk of bias arising from the randomisation process) and major concerns regarding heterogeneity (prediction interval extends into clinically important effects in both directions).
dMajor concerns regarding within-study bias (high risk of bias in measurement of the outcome) and major concerns regarding heterogeneity (prediction interval extends into clinically important effects in both directions).
eSome concerns regarding within-study bias (unclear risk of bias arising from the randomisation process), some concerns regarding imprecision (95% CI extends from clinically important effect to no effect), and some concerns regarding heterogeneity (prediction interval extends into clinically important or unimportant effects).
fSome concerns regarding within-study bias (unclear risk of bias arising from the randomisation process and in measurement of the outcome) and major concerns regarding imprecision (95% CI extends into clinically important effects in both directions).
gSome concerns regarding within-study bias (unclear risk of bias arising from the randomisation process) and major concerns regarding imprecision (95% CI extends into clinically important effects in both directions).
hSome concerns regarding within-study bias (unclear risk of bias arising from the randomisation process).
iSome concerns regarding within-study bias (unclear risk of bias arising from the randomisation process and in measurement of the outcome) and heterogeneity (prediction interval extends into clinically important or unimportant effects).
jMajor concerns regarding within-study bias (measurement of outcome).