Effects Of Exercise Snacks On Cardiometabolic Health And Body Composition In Adults: A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the impact of exercise snacks (ExSn), which involves incorporating short bursts of high-intensity physical activity into daily routines, on improving cardiometabolic health and body composition in adults. METHODS: Five online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched from inception through 24 Dec 2024, and relevant randomized controlled trials 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 and revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool assessed evidence certainty and study quality. RESULTS: 13 randomized controlled trials with 456 adults were selected for systematic review, and 12 were included in the meta-analysis. Of those, 3 showed a high risk of bias, and 10 showed some concerns. 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 (PPO) (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. Based on subgroup analysis, PPO improved significantly in physically inactive participants (SMD = 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.01) but not in active participants (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.83), with subgroup differences (Chi2 = 7.14, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: 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 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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".