Back

Use of Large Language Models by U.S. Adults to Support Exercise: A Survey Study

McVay, M. A.; Willfort, S.; Jake-Schoffman, D.; Dorr, B.; Sheer, A. J.; Henry, K.

2026-05-03 public and global health
10.64898/2026.05.01.26352211 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLarge Language Model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used for exercise and fitness topics, yet users experience with these tools remains understudied. MethodsThis study is a national survey of U.S. adults who have used an LLM chatbot for exercise-related topics in the past month. Participants answered questions about the exercise-related topics for which they used LLM chatbots, their perceptions of these chatbots value for exercise-related questions, and how chatbot use had changed their exercise behaviors and use of other exercise-related resources. ResultsParticipants (n=258) were majority male (n=138, 53.5%) and white (n=146, 56.6%) with a mean age of 41.7 (SD=14.9) years. The most endorsed topics for LLM chatbot use were making an exercise plan (n=137, 53.1%), nutrition related to exercise (n=132, 51.2%), advice on amount of exercise (n=122, 47.3%), specific exercises to try (n=120, 46.5%), and motivation or emotional support for exercise (n=112, 43.4%). On average, participants endorsed high trust (M=4.0, SD=0.7; on 1-5 scale) and a moderate emotional bond (M=3.0, SD=1.3) with LLM chatbots. Most participants (n=140, 54.3%) reported that they increased their exercise due to LLM chatbot use (M=55.6 minutes increase). Some participants reported increases in use of other resources; e.g., gyms (26.4%), wearable technology (23.3%), and exercise questions to their healthcare providers (25.6%). Those who increased exercise with LLM chatbot use reported significantly higher trust (M=4.1 vs M=3.9) and emotional bond (M=3.2 vs M=2.6) with chatbots and more use for motivation/emotional support (70.5% vs 29.5%) compared to those who did not. Many participants also used LLM chatbots for nutrition and weight-related questions. DiscussionLLM chatbots may meaningfully impact exercise-related behavior and resource use, warranting more rigorous causal research.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.8%
2
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
11.0%
3
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.7%
4
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.7%
5
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.4%
6
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
8
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
9
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
10
JMIR Research Protocols
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
11
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
12
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
14
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.9%
15
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
17
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
18
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
Preventive Medicine Reports
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
20
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
22
Systematic Reviews
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%