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 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.1%
2
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.1%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.3%
4
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
6
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
7
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.9%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.2%
9
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.0%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.0%
11
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
12
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
14
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
15
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
16
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
17
BMC Geriatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
18
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
19
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
20
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.7%
25
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%