Toward an Integrated Consideration of 24 h Movement Guidelines and Nutritional Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While physical activity, sleep and sedentary behaviors are almost always considered independently, they should be considered as integrated human behaviors. The 24 h Movement approach proposes a concomitant consideration of these behaviors to promote overall health. Not only do these behaviors impact energy expenditure, but they have also been shown to separately impact energy intake, which should be further explored when considering the entire integration of these movement behaviors under the 24 h movement approach. After an evaluation of the prevalence of meeting the 24 h Movement and dietary recommendations, this review summarizes the available evidence (using English publications indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE) regarding the association between the 24 h Movement Guidelines and eating habits. Altogether, the results clearly show the beneficial impact of promoting the 24 h guidelines simultaneously, highlighting that the higher the number of respected movement recommendations, the better eating behaviors in both children and adults. Importantly, our results point out the importance of emphasizing the need to reach sedentary guidelines for better eating habits. Movement and dietary behaviors appear closely related, and giving recommendations on one might impact the other. Combining the 24 h Movement with dietary Guidelines might be more efficient than promoting them separately in public health strategies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".