Timing of physical activity within the 24-hour day and its influence on health: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies report that the health benefits of physical activity differ depending on whether the activity is performed in the morning, afternoon or evening. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine whether the timing of physical activity within the 24-hour day is associated with health. METHODS: Five databases were searched for English or French language peer-reviewed studies that examined whether the timing of physical activity within the day is associated with health. No limits were placed on publication year, study population, study design or health outcomes. Studies that examined acute effects of physical activity or timing of physical activity around food intake were excluded. RESULTS: This systematic review examined 35 studies, with 17 259 participants, and the following health outcomes: measures of sleep health, adiposity, fat-free mass and muscle size, cardiometabolic biomarkers, physical function and mobility, mental health, and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality. Heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analyses, and we present our findings using narrative syntheses. Of the 35 studies, 11 reported that morning physical activity provides greater health benefits than afternoon/ evening physical activity, while 12 found that morning physical activity provides fewer health benefits than afternoon/evening physical. In the remaining 12 studies, there was no clear difference in health benefits based on the timing of physical activity. The quality of evidence for the different health outcomes across study designs was very low. CONCLUSION: There is no consistent evidence that physical activity at one time of day provides more favourable health benefits than physical activity at a different time of day. (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42021231088).
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".