Reply to the letter: To consider the exercise density in the dose–response relationship: the idea is promising, the operationalization tricky!

Fabian Herold, Liye Zou, Paula Theobald, Patrick Manser, Ryan S. Falck, Qian Yu, Teresa Liu-Ambrose, Arthur F. Kramer, Kirk I. Erickson, Boris Cheval, Yanxia Chen, Matthew Heath, Zhihao Zhang, Toru Ishihara, Keita Kamijo, Soichi Ando, Joseph T. Costello, Mats Hallgren, David Moreau, Vahid FarrahiDavid A. Raichlen, Emmanuel Stamatakis, Michael J. Wheeler, Neville Owen, Sebastian Ludyga, Henning Budde, Thomas Gronwald

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

Abstract

We thank Desgorces for taking the time to read our recent publication in the European Journal of Applied Physiology (Herold et al. 2025b) and providing an insightful commentary (Desgorces 2025). In his commentary, Desgorces (2025) supports our view that density is an important variable for analyzing and prescribing the dose and dosage of physical activity (PA) in the consideration of their effects on brain health. However, he also acknowledges that quantifying PA density is challenging, which is underlined by different perspectives on its definition, operationalization, and interpretation. In this context, we are pleased to have the opportunity for further clarification and for a constructive discussion by providing our perspective on the points raised by Desgorces (2025) in this reply. While we acknowledge the points raised in Desgorces’ commentary (2025), our response provides additional support for our understanding of PA density as conveyed in our initial review.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology
Early online date12 Nov 2025
DOIs
Publication statusEarly online - 12 Nov 2025

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Reply to the letter: To consider the exercise density in the dose–response relationship: the idea is promising, the operationalization tricky!'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this