Consistent Exercise Timing as a Strategy to Increase Physical Activity: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction/Purpose Observational research suggests that consistent exercise timing could be leveraged to promote moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among adults with obesity. However, the feasibility and acceptability of prescribed consistent exercise timing in a free-living setting is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of prescribed consistent exercise timing in a free-living setting among inactive adults with obesity (primary) and to compare MVPA timing prescription and characterize barriers/facilitators (secondary). Methods Using a within-subjects design, inactive adults with obesity ( n = 15) were randomized in a counterbalanced order to three 3-wk exercise timing conditions separated by 2-wk washout periods: 1) consistent morning, 2) consistent evening, and 3) choice timing (control). Feasibility was assessed using prespecified benchmarks. Acceptability and preferred timing were assessed with questionnaires postintervention. Secondarily, exercise timing and MVPA were assessed via accelerometry, and nightly surveys and barriers/facilitators were assessed with nightly surveys. Results All feasibility benchmarks were achieved (e.g., timing adherence = 69.9% via accelerometry and 87.4% via self-report; target, ≥60%). Consistent exercise timing was acceptable (mean rating = 3.7 of 5; target, ≥3.5). Choice was the most popular prescription. There were medium- to large-sized effects (partial η 2 of 0.09–0.16) of condition on MVPA; MVPA was higher during the morning and the evening conditions versus choice condition. Facilitators were similar across conditions, whereas some barriers were time specific. Conclusion Prescribed exercise timing in a free-living setting appears feasible and acceptable. Although choice timing was most preferred, consistent timing appeared most effective for increasing MVPA. Data warrant larger trials to test the efficacy and mechanisms of consistent exercise timing as a translational strategy for promoting MVPA. Pending findings from a fully powered randomized trial, practitioners interested in promoting MVPA among their patients or clients could consider encouraging exercise at a consistent time day to day.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".