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.
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.