A Single Bout of Aerobic Exercise Reduces Anxiety Sensitivity But Not Intolerance of Uncertainty or Distress Tolerance: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several mechanisms have been posited for the anxiolytic effects of exercise, including reductions in anxiety sensitivity through interoceptive exposure. Studies on aerobic exercise lend support to this hypothesis; however, research investigating aerobic exercise in comparison to placebo, the dose-response relationship between aerobic exercise anxiety sensitivity, the efficacy of aerobic exercise on the spectrum of anxiety sensitivity and the effect of aerobic exercise on other related constructs (e.g. intolerance of uncertainty, distress tolerance) is lacking. We explored reductions in anxiety sensitivity and related constructs following a single session of exercise in a community sample using a randomized controlled trial design. Forty-one participants completed 30 min of aerobic exercise or a placebo stretching control. Anxiety sensitivity, intolerance of uncertainty and distress tolerance were measured at baseline, post-intervention and 3-day and 7-day follow-ups. Individuals in the aerobic exercise group, but not the control group, experienced significant reductions with moderate effect sizes in all dimensions of anxiety sensitivity. Intolerance of uncertainty and distress tolerance remained unchanged in both groups. Our trial supports the efficacy of aerobic exercise in uniquely reducing anxiety sensitivity in individuals with varying levels of the trait and highlights the importance of empirically validating the use of aerobic exercise to address specific mental health vulnerabilities. Aerobic exercise may have potential as a temporary substitute for psychotherapy aimed at reducing anxiety-related psychopathology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".