Huang · Frontiers in public health 2025 · systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials · n=51 studies (2,201 participants)

Effects of exercise on body fat percentage and cardiorespiratory fitness in sedentary adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Cited 4 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PubMed 40746688 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1624562 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted using searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library through December 10, 2024. The authors assessed the comparative effectiveness of various exercise interventions on body fat percentage (BF%), maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and peak oxygen uptake (VO₂peak) in sedentary adults. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was evaluated using RoB 2, and data were synthesized with random-effects network meta-analysis using SUCRA rankings.

What was found

Across 51 RCTs with 2,201 participants, 27 studies (52.9%) had low risk of bias, 21 (41.2%) had some concerns, and 3 (5.9%) had high risk, with heterogeneity of I² = 28–41%. For BF% reduction, aerobic training ranked highest (SUCRA 97.5%), followed by resistance combined with endurance training (SUCRA 78.2%) and aerobic combined with strength training (SUCRA 77.4%). For VO₂max improvement, strength training ranked highest (SUCRA 95.9%). For VO₂peak, aerobic training ranked highest (SUCRA 70.0%). Absolute effect sizes and confidence intervals were not reported in the abstract.

Why it matters

This review provides comparative evidence to tailor exercise prescriptions for sedentary adults based on specific targets, suggesting aerobic modalities for fat loss and peak oxygen uptake versus strength training for maximal oxygen uptake.

Limits

The abstract reports only SUCRA ranking percentages rather than absolute mean differences or effect sizes. Nearly half of the included trials (47.1%) had some concerns or high risk of bias, and specific exercise dosages (intensity, duration, frequency) are not detailed in the abstract.

Cited by