The Effect of Sedentary Behaviour on Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is an important indicator of current and future health. While the impact of habitual physical activity on CRF is well established, the role of sedentary behaviour (SB) remains less understood. Objective We aimed to determine the effect of SB on CRF. Methods Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus from inception to August 2022. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and cohort studies that assessed the relationship between SB and CRF were eligible. Narrative syntheses and meta-analyses summarised the evidence, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) certainty was based on evidence from randomised controlled trials. Results This review included 18 studies that focused on youth (four randomised controlled trials, three quasi-experimental studies, 11 cohort studies) and 24 on adult populations (15 randomised controlled trials, five quasi-experimental studies, four cohort studies). In youth and adults, evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests mixed effects of SB on CRF, but with the potential for interventions to improve CRF. Quasi-experimental and cohort studies also support similar conclusions. Certainty of evidence was very low for both age groups. A meta-analysis of adult randomised controlled trials found that interventions targeting reducing SB, or increasing physical activity and reducing SB, had a significant effect on post-peak oxygen consumption (mean difference = 3.16 mL . kg –1. min –1 , 95% confidence interval: 1.76, 4.57). Conclusions Evidence from randomised controlled trials indicates mixed associations between SB and CRF, with the potential for SB to influence CRF, as supported by meta-analytical findings. Further well-designed trials are warranted to confirm the relationship between SB and CRF, explore the effects of SB independent from higher intensity activity, and investigate the existence of such relationships in paediatric populations. Clinical Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42022356218.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".