Interleukin‐6 is not involved in appetite regulation following moderate‐intensity exercise in males with normal weight and obesity
Derek P.D. Bornath, Greg L. McKie, Seth F. McCarthy, Luke W. Vanderheyden, Greg J. Howe, Philip J. Medeiros, Tom J. Hazell
Abstract
Abstract Objective In obesogenic states and after exercise, interleukin (IL)‐6 elevations are established, and IL‐6 is speculated to be an appetite‐regulating mechanism. This study examined the role of IL‐6 on exercise‐induced appetite regulation in sedentary normal weight (NW) males and those with obesity (OB). Methods Nine NW participants and eight participants with OB completed one non‐exercise control (CTRL) and one moderate‐intensity continuous training (MICT; 60 minutes, 65% V̇O 2max ) session. IL‐6, acylated ghrelin, active peptide tyrosine‐tyrosine 3‐36 , active glucagon‐like peptide‐1, and overall appetite perceptions were measured fasted, pre exercise, and 30, 90, and 150 minutes post exercise. Results Fasted IL‐6 concentrations were elevated in OB ( p = 0.005, = 0.419); however, increases following exercise were similar between groups ( p = 0.934, = 0.000). Acylated ghrelin was lower in OB versus NW ( p < 0.017, d > 0.84), and OB did not respond to MICT ( p > 0.512, d < 0.44) although NW had a decrease versus CTRL ( p < 0.034, d > 0.61). IL‐6 did not moderate/mediate acylated ghrelin release after exercise ( p > 0.251). There were no observable effects of MICT on tyrosine‐tyrosine 3‐36 , glucagon‐like peptide‐1, or overall appetite ( p > 0.334, < 0.062). Conclusions These results suggest that IL‐6 is not involved in exercise‐induced appetite suppression. Despite blunted appetite‐regulatory peptide responses to MICT in participants with OB, NW participants exhibited decreased acylated ghrelin; however, no differences in appetite perceptions existed between CTRL and MICT or NW and OB.