This study aimed to determine the optimal functional movement screen (FMS) cut score for assessing the risk of sport injury, and to investigate the correlations between functional movement quality and sprint and jump performance. Twenty-four (N = 24) athletes performed all tests in one day at 10–30 min intervals, and the FMS test was performed first, without a warm-up session. After a standard warm-up, athletes then completed the Y-balance Test (YBT), sprint, counter-movement jump (CMJ), and standing long jump (SLJ), in turn. For each test, the best of three attempts was recorded for further analysis. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area-under-the-curve (AUC) were used to determine the optimal FMS cut score for assessing the risk of sport injuries, and Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was used to quantify associations between functional movement scores and athletic performance. The average FMS score was 16.2 and the optimal FMS cut score for assessing the risk of sport injuries was 14.5. There were moderate relationships between total FMS score and 10–20 m sprint time (r = −0.46, p < 0.05), between In-line Lunge and 0–20 m sprint time (r = −0.47, p < 0.05), between Shoulder Mobility and 0–10 m sprint time (r = −0.48, p < 0.05), and between Trunk-stability Push-up and 10–20 m sprint time (r = −0.47, p < 0.05). Moreover, Hurdle Step score was largely correlated with 0–10 m time (r = −0.51, p < 0.05). For Y-balance, moderate correlations were observed between CMJ height and anterior asymmetry score (r = −0.47, p < 0.05) and posteromedial asymmetry score (r = −0.44, p < 0.05). However, there were no significant associations between YBT performance (asymmetric in three directions and composite score) and sprint performance (p > 0.05). Taken together, the results indicate that a FMS score of 14 is not a gold standard for assessing the risk of injury in all populations; we recommend that the FMS cut score of 14.5 should be the optimal score for assessing risk of injury in young female elite soccer players. Moreover, the FMS and YBT were introduced to assess the quality of functional movements, and they cannot be used to assess sprint and jump performance. Practitioners can use components of the FMS that have similar characteristics to specific sports to assess athletic performance.

Objective: To quantify the acute effects of brief, frequent interruptions to prolonged sitting (“exercise snacks”) on postprandial glucose and insulin in adults with obesity, and to explore potential effect modifiers. Data sources and methods: Following PRISMA 2020, seven sources (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov , ICTRP, CINAHL) were searched to July 10, 2025. Randomized crossover or parallel trials in adults with obesity comparing activity breaks with uninterrupted sitting were included. Co-primary outcomes were glucose and insulin incremental area under the curve (iAUC); secondary outcomes were total AUC (tAUC) and mean levels. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized standardized or mean differences (95% CI); heterogeneity was quantified by I ² . Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken; small-study effects were examined when k ≥ 10. Risk of bias was appraised with Cochrane RoB 2.0 (fixed-effect estimates were additionally inspected when heterogeneity was low to moderate). Results: Seventeen trials (261 unique participants; predominantly randomized crossover) were included. Versus uninterrupted sitting, activity breaks reduced glucose iAUC (SMD = −0.49, 95% CI –0.85 to −0.14; I ² = 76%) and reduced insulin iAUC (SMD = −0.26, 95% CI –0.50 to −0.03; I ² = 44%). Glucose tAUC and mean glucose showed non-significant downward trends. Mean insulin decreased (SMD = −0.54, 95% CI –0.97 to −0.10), albeit with high heterogeneity (I ² = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested larger effects with higher-frequency (≤30-min) and short-bout (≤3-min) interruptions and with walking or simple resistance, although tests for subgroup differences were generally non-significant. Meta-regressions showed age predicted glucose iAUC, BMI and interruption frequency predicted mean insulin, no moderator predicted insulin iAUC, and intervention intensity (daily MET) had minimal, non-significant effects. Findings were robust in leave-one-out and model-assumption sensitivity analyses, with no clear small-study effects for glucose outcomes. Conclusion: In adults with obesity, interrupting sitting about every ≤30 min with 2–5 min of light-to-moderate walking or simple resistance acutely attenuates postprandial glucose and insulin responses. These findings support exercise “snacks” as a pragmatic behavioral strategy, while longer-term randomized trials are needed to define durability and refine dose parameters. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251144139 , Identifier CRD420251144139.

Introduction: Depression is a prevalent and disabling mental disorder worldwide. Resistance training (RT) has emerged as a promising adjunct intervention, but comprehensive quantitative synthesis on its efficacy and optimal exercise prescription remains limited. Objective: To evaluate the effects of RT on depressive symptoms in adults with a clinically diagnosed depressive disorder, and to explore—exploratorily—whether participant characteristics and prescription components modify outcomes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and CNKI from inception through August 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RT to a non-exercise control in adults with depression (PROSPERO CRD42024583413). Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data in accordance with PRISMA 2020. Depression outcomes were pooled as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model, with unit-of-analysis safeguards for multi-arm trials. Pre-specified exploratory analyses evaluated potential effect modifiers (e.g., clinical phenotype [primary vs. comorbid], training frequency, age, baseline severity, duration, intensity, weekly volume). Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane tool; publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Begg’s test, noting limited power with this study count. Sensitivity analyses included exclusion of high-risk studies and leave-one-out influence checks to test robustness. Results: Twenty-nine RCTs ( N = 2,036) met inclusion criteria. RT significantly reduced depressive symptoms compared to controls (pooled SMD = −0.94, 95% CI: −1.16 to −0.72, p < 0.001), though heterogeneity was high ( I ² ≈ 80%). Benefits were observed in both primary depressive disorder (SMD − 1.12, 95% CI − 1.43 to −0.81) and comorbid depression (SMD − 0.66, −0.96 to −0.36), with a modest between-subgroup contrast (Q_between = 4.41, p = 0.036). Effects were directionally consistent across self-report and observer-rated measures and across frequency strata (<3 vs. ≥ 3 sessions/week), with no compelling between-subgroup differences; beyond these key strata, exploratory subgroup analyses across age, baseline severity, duration, intensity, and weekly volume likewise did not reveal consistent between-group differences, and estimates were imprecise in small strata. Sensitivity analyses—excluding high-risk studies and via leave-one-out influence checks—yielded estimates of similar magnitude. The funnel plot appeared broadly symmetric and Begg’s test was non-significant, while acknowledging limited power with this study count. Conclusion: RT meaningfully reduces depressive symptoms in adults with clinically diagnosed depression. Given substantial heterogeneity and measurement (self-report vs. observer-rated) and clinical (primary vs. comorbid) variability, any apparent effect modifiers are interpreted cautiously and considered exploratory/hypothesis-generating. To improve precision and implementation, future trials should standardize supervision/adherence reporting (e.g., TIDieR/CERT) and include preregistered follow-ups (3–12 months) to assess durability, while training-prescription guidance remains preliminary pending better-reported, preregistered studies. Systematic review registration: Unique Identifier: CRD42024583413, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024583413 .