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 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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".