“…Overall, the quality of the manuscripts included in the review was moderate to high (Mean = 11 ± 2 of a possible 16). Participant characteristics (eligibility criteria) were not included in 45% of the studies (n = 14) (Cameron‐Smith et al, ; Arkinstall et al, ; Holloway et al, , ; Helge et al, ; Talanian et al, , ; de Bock et al, ; Tjonna et al, ; Yeo et al, ; Cheng et al, , ; Hulston et al, ; Bradley et al, ), and the exercise stimuli involved in each study was clearly described in all bar one manuscript (Mensink et al, ). All studies investigating acute exercise, bar one (Holloway et al, ), were deemed to use adequate adjustment for confounders, however only 12 (Kiens et al, ; Tunstall et al, ; Cameron‐Smith et al, ; Schenk and Horowitz, ; Burgomaster et al, ; Talanian et al, ; de Bock et al, ; Perry et al, ; Yeo et al, ; Hulston et al, ; van Proeyen et al, ; Jeppesen et al, ) intervention studies were considered to do the same.…”