Exercise misinformation research rarely tracks how claims spread
The review found gaps in tracking the spread of misleading claims and following information over time.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
This review maps research on physical activity misinformation across social media and other online material. It highlights low-quality information and gaps in tracking how claims spread. The reported percentages describe the included studies, not the share of exercise posts that are false, and the abstract does not show how misinformation changes health or behavior.
This summary uses only the abstract. The review identifies a lack of longitudinal research and does not give an overall misinformation rate or establish its effects on users.
What researchers found
Studies measuring misinformation spread
Descriptive count among 33 studies; no group comparison for this result. Observation periods were not reported.
Research coverage varies
Rehabilitation and therapeutic exercise were the most common topics, and YouTube was the most studied platform. Those patterns describe research coverage; they do not establish which topic or platform contains the most misinformation.
Content versus its effects
Most studies analyzed material already available online rather than engaging participants directly. Some material came from websites, news or blogs, so the evidence base extends beyond posts originally published on social media.
The original publication
Physical Activity Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review.
Thomas DD, Xu L, Yu B et al.
JMIR Infodemiology · 2025
- PubMed ID
- 41061255
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.