Effect of an Active Video Game Intervention Combined With Multicomponent Exercise for Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Children With Overweight and Obesity: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Childhood overweight and obesity have become major global health problems and are negatively related with the cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) level in school children and adolescents. Exercise, specifically multicomponent training, is effective for CRF improvement, but the main challenge is to ensure adherence to exercise in children with overweight and obesity. Therefore, new ways of exercising that are more attractive and motivational for this population are needed and playing or training with active video games (AVGs) has been proposed as an effective alternative because they require full-body movement and therefore increase energy expenditure. Objective The main aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an AVG intervention combined with multicomponent training on CRF at maximal and submaximal intensities in children with overweight or obesity. Methods We recruited 28 children (13 girls and 15 boys) aged 9 to 11 years with overweight or obesity from medical centers and divided them into 2 groups, an intervention group (n=20) that participated in a 5-month supervised AVG exercise program combined with multicomponent exercise, and a control group (n=8) that continued daily activities without modification. A maximal stress test to measure CRF using a walking-graded protocol with respiratory gas exchange was performed by the participants. Results The AVG group showed a significant decrease in heart rate and oxygen uptake for the same intensities in the submaximal stages of the maximal treadmill test, as well as a lower oxygen uptake percentage according to the individual maximal oxygen uptake, whereas the control group did not show overall changes. No change in the peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) was found. Conclusions A 5-month AVG intervention combined with multicomponent exercise had positive effects on CRF at submaximal intensity, showing a lower heart rate and oxygen uptake at the same intensities and displaying a lower oxygen uptake percentage according to the individual (VO2peak). Greater benefits were found in children with the highest fat percentage. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04418713; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04418713
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".