Consistent Exercise Timing as a Strategy to Increase Physical Activity: A Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Introduction/Purpose Observational research suggests that consistent exercise timing could be leveraged to promote moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among adults with obesity. However, the feasibility and acceptability of prescribed consistent exercise timing in a free-living setting is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of prescribed consistent exercise timing in a free-living setting among inactive adults with obesity (primary) and to compare MVPA timing prescription and characterize barriers/facilitators (secondary). Methods Using a within-subjects design, inactive adults with obesity ( n = 15) were randomized in a counterbalanced order to three 3-wk exercise timing conditions separated by 2-wk washout periods: 1) consistent morning, 2) consistent evening, and 3) choice timing (control). Feasibility was assessed using prespecified benchmarks. Acceptability and preferred timing were assessed with questionnaires postintervention. Secondarily, exercise timing and MVPA were assessed via accelerometry, and nightly surveys and barriers/facilitators were assessed with nightly surveys. Results All feasibility benchmarks were achieved (e.g., timing adherence = 69.9% via accelerometry and 87.4% via self-report; target, ≥60%). Consistent exercise timing was acceptable (mean rating = 3.7 of 5; target, ≥3.5). Choice was the most popular prescription. There were medium- to large-sized effects (partial η 2 of 0.09–0.16) of condition on MVPA; MVPA was higher during the morning and the evening conditions versus choice condition. Facilitators were similar across conditions, whereas some barriers were time specific. Conclusion Prescribed exercise timing in a free-living setting appears feasible and acceptable. Although choice timing was most preferred, consistent timing appeared most effective for increasing MVPA. Data warrant larger trials to test the efficacy and mechanisms of consistent exercise timing as a translational strategy for promoting MVPA. Pending findings from a fully powered randomized trial, practitioners interested in promoting MVPA among their patients or clients could consider encouraging exercise at a consistent time day to day.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».