MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414827161 · doi:10.22230/ijdrp.2025v7n2a583

The Need for Upper Limits in Physical Activity Guidelines: A Narrative Review

2025· article· en· W4414827161 on OpenAlexaff
David Goldman, Cassandra Warbeck

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Disease Reversal and Prevention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrative reviewLongevityPhysical activityNarrativePublic healthResistance trainingCohortHealth benefitsAerobic exercise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity (PA) guidelines establish minimum thresholds for health benefits but lack upper limits. Regular PA is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, but a growing body of evidence indicates a J- or reverse J-shaped relationship, suggesting that excessive exercise may not provide additional longevity benefits and may even pose health risks. This narrative review synthesizes findings from cohort studies and meta-analyses examining the dose-response relationships between total PA and resistance exercise training (RET) and all-cause mortality. The greatest reduction in mortality risk coincides with 2,000–3,000 metabolic equivalents minutes/week of total PA, including 40–60 minutes/week of RET. Exceeding these levels is not associated with further improvements in survival risk and may be associated with increased mortality risk, potentially through adverse cardiovascular adaptations including myocardial fibrosis and arterial stiffness. Given the rising engagement in aerobic and muscle-strengthening exercise, public health recommendations should include safe upper thresholds alongside existing minimum targets.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Disease Reversal and PreventionSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207