MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408559069 · doi:10.1186/s40798-025-00829-6

Application of Exercise Snacks across Youth, Adult and Clinical Populations: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4408559069 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine - Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSittingContext (archaeology)Physical therapyExercise intensityInternal medicineHeart ratePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Interest in 'exercise snacks' has increased, yet a comprehensive and holistic review of this novel concept is lacking. We aimed to map global research on 'exercise snacks', across youth, adult and clinical populations through a scoping review. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in six databases. Grey literature searches were also conducted. Studies whereby participants were prescribed a structured bout of intense exercise dispersed across the day, or the exercise was explicitly defined as a form of 'snacks', in any setting were included. We used the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) to assess the completeness of exercise descriptions. Data were recorded into spreadsheets, then descriptively analyzed and summarized in graphic form. RESULTS: The 45 publications meeting our inclusion criteria represented 33 original studies. These 33 studies enrolled a total of 1118 participants, with a median sample size of 24. Studies were categorized as either acute (n = 12) or chronic (n = 21) trials with both trial types performed across a wide range of participant ages (range 8.7 to 78 years) but mostly conducted on healthy adults and older adults. The majority of studies (20/33) defined the concept as 'exercise snacks', with study context being predominantly the laboratory or home. A wide variety of exercise modes (e.g., cycling, stair climbing, body weight exercises) and comparator conditions (e.g., moderate intensity continuous exercise, prolonged sitting, non-exercise controls) were used. 'Exercise snack' intensity was prescribed more frequently than it was reported, and, of the available data, mean intensity was estimated at 76.9% of maximal heart rate and 5.2 Arbitrary Units (AU) on the Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) CR10 scale. Study outcome measures were predominantly cardiovascular, metabolic, muscular, and psychological, with studies mostly adhering to the CERT, though there was underreporting of detail for the exercise provider, motivation strategies, adverse events and intervention fidelity. CONCLUSION: The 'exercise snack' concept is being increasingly used to cover an array of exercise models. The most common protocols to date utilize body weight exercises or stair climbing. We recommend 'exercise snacks' terminology is consistently used to describe protocols whereby short, purposeful structured exercise is dispersed throughout the day. Future studies should provide detailed descriptions of their 'exercise snacks' model, through exercise and adverse event reporting checklists.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it