Is willingness to exercise programmed in utero? Reviewing sedentary behavior and the benefits of physical activity in intrauterine growth restricted individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The literature suggests that a fetus will adapt to surrounding adversities by optimizing its use of energy to improve survival, ultimately leading to the programming of the individual's energy intake and expenditure. While recent reviews focused on the fetal programming of energy intake and food preferences, there is also some evidence that fetal adversity is associated with diminished physical activity levels. Therefore, we aimed to review (a) the evidence for an association between being born with intrauterine growth restriction and sedentarism over the life-course and (b) the potential benefits of physical activity over cardiometabolic risk factors for this population. SOURCES: PubMed, Scielo, Scopus and Embase. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Most clinical studies that used objective measures found no association between intrauterine growth restriction and physical activity levels, while most studies that used self-reported questionnaires revealed such relationships, particularly leisure time physical activity. Experimental studies support the existence of fetal programming of physical activity, and show that exposure to exercise during IUGR individuals' life improves metabolic outcomes but less effect was seen on muscle architecture or function. CONCLUSIONS: Alterations in muscle strength and metabolism, as well as altered aerobic performance, may predispose IUGR individuals to be spontaneously less physically active, suggesting that this population may be an important target for preventive interventions. Although very heterogeneous, the different studies allow us to infer that physical activity may have beneficial effects especially for individuals that are more vulnerable to metabolic modifications such as those with IUGR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".