MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413137863 · doi:10.1111/sms.70114

Effects of Exercise Snacks on Cardiometabolic Health and Body Composition in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4413137863 on OpenAlexaff
Kewen Wan, Zihan Dai, Yajun Huang, Evander Fung‐chau Lei, Jonathan P. Little, Feng‐Chang Lin, Bjorn T. Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHong Kong Baptist University
KeywordsMeta-analysisComposition (language)Environmental healthMedicineGerontologyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the impact of exercise snacks (ExSn), which involve incorporating short bursts of high-intensity physical activity into daily routines, on improving cardiometabolic health and body composition in adults. Six online databases [PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and Scopus] were searched from inception through 22 May 2025, and relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) were identified. Outcomes were analyzed using standardized mean differences and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on physical activity levels and duration for each bout of ExSn. The GRADE scale was used to assess evidence certainty, while the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) was used to evaluate the quality of RCTs, and the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for non-RCTs. Twelve RCTs and two non-RCTs, involving a total of 483 adults, were selected for the systematic review; 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Among the RCTs, 2 studies showed a high risk of bias, and 10 showed some concerns. For the non-RCTs, 1 study had a moderate risk of bias, and 1 had a serious risk of bias. The ExSn group showed significant improvements in maximal oxygen uptake (SMD = 1.43, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.25, p < 0.001) and peak power output (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.36, p = 0.050), and reductions in total cholesterol (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.11, p = 0.018) and LDL cholesterol (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.09, p = 0.023). No significant differences were found for body weight, body fat, HDL cholesterol, or triglycerides. ExSn significantly enhances cardiometabolic health, especially in physically inactive adults. As a novel, time-efficient approach, ExSn can be easily integrated into daily routines, offering a practical solution for sedentary and inactive individuals or those with limited time. These findings highlight its potential as a widely applicable public health strategy, warranting further research on long-term effects and broader applications. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024554446.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.041
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207