Effects of Walking on LDL Cholesterol and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Postmenopausal Women: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Postmenopausal women face an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. While aerobic physical activity is widely recommended, the specific effect of walking on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains unclear. LDL-C is a key modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet it has been inconsistently evaluated in exercise-focused studies. This scoping review aimed to examine LDL-C as a cardiometabolic outcome in studies evaluating walking-based aerobic interventions among postmenopausal women. Methods: A scoping review was conducted between April and June 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published between 2010 and 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort, and cross-sectional studies evaluating walking as an aerobic intervention in postmenopausal women and reporting outcomes on LDL-C (primary outcome), body mass index (BMI), or glucose (secondary outcomes). Two reviewers independently screened studies and assessed risk of bias using RoB 2 and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Nine studies comprising 3,629 postmenopausal women aged 45–75 years met the inclusion criteria, with walking defined as aerobic physical activity performed at a moderate intensity threshold. Interventions varied in duration, intensity, and supervision. Only two studies reported significant reductions in LDL-C, whereas six found no significant change. BMI reductions were observed in three studies, and all three studies reporting glucose outcomes demonstrated improvement. Substantial heterogeneity in study design and intervention protocols limited comparability, and most studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. Conclusion: Walking-based aerobic interventions may improve some cardiometabolic markers in postmenopausal women; however, effects on LDL-C are inconsistent. Future studies should employ standardized walking protocols, ensure adequate intervention duration and supervision, and consistently assess LDL-C over time to clarify its role as a cardiovascular risk marker in this population.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".