Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
X
May 28, 2025
.png)
The U.S. government released a sweeping document titled The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again, developed by the President’s “Make America Healthy Again” Commission. Chaired by public figures and physicians with ties to the current administration, the report presents a broad diagnosis of what it calls a national health crisis among children. It cites rising rates of obesity, diabetes, allergies, mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorders, and chronic disease as signs of a generation at risk.
The report's overarching goal is to shift U.S. health policy away from reactive, pharmaceutical-based care and toward prevention, resilience, and long-term well-being. It emphasizes reforming the food system, reducing environmental chemical exposure, addressing lifestyle factors like physical inactivity and screen overuse, and rethinking what it calls the “overmedicalization” of American children.
While some of the report’s arguments are steeped in political rhetoric and controversial claims—particularly around vaccines and mental health diagnoses—others are rooted in well-established public health science. This blog aims to highlight where the MAHA Report gets the science right, especially as it relates to childhood health and ADHD.
Although the MAHA Report contains several debatable assertions, it also outlines six key public health priorities that are well-supported by decades of research. If implemented thoughtfully, these recommendations might make a meaningful difference in the health of American children:
Reduce Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) Consumption
UPFs now make up nearly 70% of children’s daily calories. These foods are high in added sugars, refined starches, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives, but low in nutrients. Studies—including a 2019 NIH-controlled feeding study—show that UPFs promote weight gain, overeating, and metabolic dysfunction. What can help: Tax incentives for fresh food retailers, improved school meals, front-of-pack labeling, and food industry regulation.
Promote Physical Activity and Limiting Sedentary Time
Most American children don’t get the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day. This contributes to obesity, cardiovascular risk, and even mental health issues. Physical activity is known to improve attention, mood, sleep, and self-regulation. What can help: Mandatory daily PE, school recess policies, walkable community infrastructure, and screen-time education.
Addressing Sleep Deprivation
Teens today sleep less than they did a decade ago, in part due to screen use and early school start times. Sleep loss is linked to depression, suicide risk, poor academic performance, and metabolic problems. What can help: Later school start times, family education about sleep hygiene, and limits on evening screen exposure.
Improving Maternal and Early Childhood Nutrition
The report indirectly supports actions that are backed by strong evidence: encouraging breastfeeding, supporting maternal whole-food diets, and improving infant nutrition. These are known to reduce chronic disease risk later in life.
ADHD is one of the most discussed neurodevelopmental disorders in the MAHA Report, but many of its claims about ADHD are misleading, oversimplified, or inconsistent with decades of scientific evidence, much of which is described in the International Consensus Statement on ADHD, and other references given below.
This is true. Diagnosis rates have risen over the past two decades, due in part to better recognition, broadened diagnostic criteria, and changes in healthcare access. Diagnosis rates in some parts of the country are too high, but we don’t know why. That should be addressed and investigated. MAHA attributes increasing diagnoses to ‘overmedicalization’. That is a hypothesis worth testing but not a conclusion we can draw from available data.
These have been associated with ADHD but have not been documented as causes. ADHD is highly heritable, with genetic factors accounting for 70–80% of the risk. Unlike genetic studies, environmental risk studies are compromised by confounding variables. There are good reasons to address these issues but doing so is unlikely to reduce diagnostic rates of ADHD.
❌ Inaccurate: ADHD medications don’t work long-term.
The report criticizes stimulant use but fails to note that ADHD medications are among the most effective psychiatric treatments, especially when consistently used. They cite the MTA study’s long term outcome study of kids assigned to medication vs. placebo as showing medications don’t work in the long term. But that comparison is flawed because during the follow-up period, many kids on medication stopped taking them and many on placebo started taking medications. Many studies document that medications for ADHD protect against many real-world outcomes such as accidental injuries, substance abuse and even premature death.
Despite the issues discussed above, the MAHA Report can indirectly help children and adults with ADHD by pushing for systemic changes that reduce ultra-processed food consumption, increase physical activity, and motivate better sleep practices.
In other words, you don’t need to reject the diagnosis of ADHD to support broader changes in how we feed, educate, and care for children. A more supportive, less toxic environment benefits everyone—including those with ADHD.
The MAHA Report; https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WH-The-MAHA-Report-Assessment.pdf
The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, Sept 2021, Issue 128, pages 789-818. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.02
Faraone SV, Bellgrove MA, Brikell I, et al. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2024; 10(1): 11.
Faraone SV. Understanding Environmental Exposures and ADHD: a Pathway Forward. Prev Sci 2024.
Perfluoroalkylated substances (PFASs), commonly known as "forever chemicals" in the media, are pollutants that do not break down in the environment. Their chemical structure includes fluorine atoms bonded to carbon, which makes them effective at repelling water. This property has led to their use in water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant carpets and furniture, and nonstick cookware.
However, the same chemical structure that makes PFASs useful also makes them a concern for human and animal health, as there are no natural biological processes to remove them from the body. Once ingested, they accumulate and become more concentrated at each level of the food chain. PFASs can also cross the placental barrier, raising concerns about potential harm to developing embryos and fetuses.
A Chinese research team conducted a systematic review of the medical literature to examine if there is a link between maternal exposure to PFASs and an increased risk of ADHD in children. They analyzed data from several studies:
- A meta-analysis of five studies involving 2,513 mother-child pairs found no increase in ADHD risk from exposure to PFOA (perfluorooctanoate) or PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate). The consistency across these studies was high, with little variation and no evidence of publication bias.
- Another meta-analysis of three studies with 995 mother-child pairs also showed no increase in ADHD risk from exposure to PFNA (perfluorononanoate) or PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonate), with similarly negligible variation between studies and no publication bias.
- In an analysis comparing the highest and lowest quartiles of maternal exposure, a slight increase in ADHD risk was observed with PFOA exposure, while a slight decrease was noted with PFOS exposure. Both findings were marginally significant and may be due to the small sample sizes.
The researchers concluded that more studies are needed to confirm these findings due to the limited evidence available.
This New York Times article, “5 Takeaways from New Research about ADHD”, earns a poor grade for accuracy. Let’s break down their (often misleading and frequently inaccurate) claims about ADHD.
The Claim: A.D.H.D. is hard to define/ No ADHD Biomarkers exist
The Reality: The claim that ADHD is hard to define “because scientists haven’t found a single biological marker” is misleading at best. While it is true that no biomarker exists, decades of rigorous research using structured clinical interviews and standardized rating scales show that ADHD is reliably diagnosed. Decades of validation research consistently show that ADHD is indeed a biologically-based disorder. One does not need a biomarker to draw that conclusion and recent research about ADHD has not changed that conclusion.
Additionally, research has in fact confirmed that genetics do play a role in the development of ADHD and several genes associated with ADHD have been identified.
The Claim: The efficacy of medication wanes over time
The Reality: The article’s statement that medications like Adderall or Ritalin only provide short-term benefits that fade over time is wrong. It relies almost entirely on one study—the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA). In the MTA study, the relative advantage of medication over behavioral treatments diminished after 36 months. This was largely because many patients who had not initially been given medication stopped taking it and many who had only been treated with behavior therapy suddenly began taking medication. The MTA shows that patients frequently switched treatments. It does not overturn other data documenting that these medications are highly effective. Moreover, many longitudinal studies clearly demonstrate sustained benefits of ADHD medications in reducing core symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and serious negative outcomes, including accidents, and school dropout rates. A study of nearly 150,000 people with ADHD in Sweden concluded “Among individuals diagnosed with ADHD, medication initiation was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, particularly for death due to unnatural causes”. The NY Times’ claim that medications lose their beneficial effects over time ignores compelling evidence to the contrary.
The Claim: Medications don’t help children with ADHD learn
The Reality: ADHD medications are proven to reliably improve attention, increase time spent on tasks, and reduce disruptive behavior, all critical factors directly linked to better academic performance.The article’s assertion that ADHD medications improve only classroom behavior and do not actually help students learn also oversimplifies and misunderstands the research evidence. While medication alone might not boost IQ or cognitive ability in a direct sense, extensive research confirms significant objective improvements in academic productivity and educational success—contrary to the claim made in the article that the medication’s effect is merely emotional or perceptual, rather than genuinely educational.
For example, a study of students with ADHD who were using medication intermittingly concluded “Individuals with ADHD had higher scores on the higher education entrance tests during periods they were taking ADHD medication vs non-medicated periods. These findings suggest that ADHD medications may help ameliorate educationally relevant outcomes in individuals with ADHD.”
The Claim: Changing a child’s environment can change his or her symptoms.
The Reality: The Times article asserts that ADHD symptoms are influenced by environmental fluctuations and thus might not have their roots in neurobiology. We have known for many years that the symptoms of ADHD fluctuate with environmental demands. The interpretation of this given by the NY Times is misleading because it confuses symptom variability with underlying causes. Many disorders with well-established biological origins are sensitive to environmental factors, yet their biology remains undisputed.
For example, hypertension is unquestionably a biologically based condition involving genetic and physiological factors. However, it is also well-known that environmental stressors, dietary
habits, and lifestyle factors can significantly worsen or improve hypertension. Similarly, asthma is biologically rooted in inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, but environmental triggers such as allergens, pollution, or even emotional stress clearly impact symptom severity. Just as these environmental influences on hypertension or asthma do not negate their biological basis, the responsiveness of ADHD symptoms to environmental fluctuations (e.g., improvements in classroom structure, supportive home life) does not imply that ADHD lacks neurobiological roots. Rather, it underscores that ADHD, like many medical conditions, emerges from the interplay between underlying biological vulnerabilities and environmental influences.
Claim: There is no clear dividing line between those who have A.D.H.D. and those who don’t.
The Reality: This is absolutely and resoundingly false. The article’s suggestion that ADHD diagnosis is arbitrary because ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum rather than as a clear-cut, binary condition is misleading. Although it is true that ADHD symptoms—like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity—do vary continuously across the population, the existence of this continuum does not make the diagnosis arbitrary or invalidate the disorder’s biological basis. Many well-established medical conditions show the same pattern. For instance, hypertension (high blood pressure) and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) both involve measures that are continuously distributed. Blood pressure and cholesterol levels exist along a continuum, yet clear diagnostic thresholds have been carefully established through decades of clinical research. Their continuous distribution does not lead clinicians to question whether these conditions have biological origins or whether diagnosing an individual with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia is arbitrary. Rather, it underscores that clinical decisions and diagnostic thresholds are established using evidence about what levels lead to meaningful impairment or increased risk of negative health outcomes. Similarly, the diagnosis of ADHD has been meticulously defined and refined over many decades using extensive empirical research, structured clinical interviews, and validated rating scales. The diagnostic criteria developed by experts carefully delineate the point at which symptoms become severe enough to cause significant impairment in an individual’s daily functioning. Far from being arbitrary, these thresholds reflect robust scientific evidence that individuals meeting these criteria face increased risks for the serious impairments in life including accidents, suicide and premature death.
The existence of milder forms of ADHD does not undermine the validity of the diagnosis; rather, it emphasizes the clinical reality that people experience varying degrees of symptom severity.
Moreover, acknowledging variability in severity has always been a core principle in medicine. Clinicians routinely adjust treatments to meet individual patient needs. Not everyone diagnosed with hypertension receives identical medication regimens, nor does everyone with elevated cholesterol get prescribed the same intervention. Similarly, people with ADHD receive personalized treatment plans tailored to the severity of their symptoms, their specific impairments, and their individual circumstances. This personalization is not evidence of arbitrariness; it is precisely how evidence-based medicine is practiced. In sum, the continuous nature of ADHD symptoms is fully compatible with a biologically-based diagnosis that has substantial evidence for validity, and acknowledging symptom variability does not render diagnosis arbitrary or diminish its clinical importance.
In sum, readers seeking a balanced, evidence-based understanding of ADHD deserve clearer, more careful reporting. By overstating diagnostic uncertainty, selectively interpreting research about medication efficacy, and inaccurately portraying the educational benefits of medication, this article presents an overly simplistic, misleading picture of ADHD.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder that significantly impacts children’s academic performance, social interactions, and overall quality of life (QoL). While medication is the standard treatment, it often comes with side effects and may not always provide sufficient benefits. A new systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate whether physical activity can offer a viable and effective alternative or complement to medication.
About the Study
This protocol, developed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) guidelines, focuses on randomized clinical trials involving children and adolescents (ages 3–18) diagnosed with ADHD or hyperkinetic disorder. The study's goal is to evaluate the effects of physical activity on:
Unlike earlier reviews, which often included non-randomized trials or imposed limits on activity types, this analysis takes a more robust and inclusive approach. It is the first of its kind to examine QoL as an outcome while also incorporating trial sequential analysis—a method to assess evidence strength over time.
Why Physical Activity?
Physical activity is believed to impact the same brain systems targeted by ADHD medications, particularly the catecholaminergic system. This overlap suggests that exercise could play a key role in managing symptoms, potentially reducing reliance on medication or enhancing its effects.
Methodology Highlights
Significance and Dissemination
The results of this systematic review will provide critical insights into how physical activity could improve outcomes for children and adolescents with ADHD. It is also notable as the first review in this field to prioritize quality of life—a crucial, often-overlooked measure of treatment success.
The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences to inform clinicians, educators, and families.
Conclusion
As concerns about the limitations of ADHD medication grow, exploring alternatives like physical activity becomes increasingly important. This systematic review has the potential to shape future treatment strategies, offering children with ADHD a chance for better symptom management and a higher quality of life.
Executive function impairment is a key feature of ADHD, with its severity linked to the intensity of ADHD symptoms. Executive function involves managing complex cognitive tasks for organized behavior and includes three main areas: inhibitory control (suppressing impulsive actions), working memory (holding information briefly), and cognitive flexibility (switching between different mental tasks). Improving executive functions is a critical objective in the treatment of ADHD.
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are commonly used to treat ADHD, but can cause side effects like reduced appetite, sleep problems, nausea, and headaches. Long-term use may also lead to stunted growth and cardiovascular issues. This encourages the search for non-invasive methods to enhance executive function in children with ADHD.
Neurological techniques like neurofeedback and transcranial stimulation are increasingly used to treat children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurofeedback is the most adopted method; it is noninvasive and aims to improve brain function by providing real-time feedback on brainwave activity so participants can self-regulate targeted brain regions.
The systematic search and meta-analysis examined children and adolescents aged 6–18 with ADHD. It included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, as well as quasi-experimental studies that reported statistical data such as participant numbers, means, and standard deviations. Studies were required to use validated measures of executive function, including neurocognitive tasks or questionnaires. They also had to have control groups.
A meta-analysis of ten studies (539 participants) found a small-to-medium improvement in inhibitory control after neurofeedback training, with no publication bias and minimal study heterogeneity*. Long-term treatment (over 21 hours) showed benefits, while short-term treatment did not. However, publication bias was present in the long-term treatment studies and was not addressed.
A meta-analysis of seven studies with 370 children and adolescents found a small-to-medium improvement in working memory after neurofeedback, with no publication bias overall but high heterogeneity. A dose-response effect was observed: treatments over 21 hours showed benefits, while shorter ones did not. However, publication bias was present in the long-term treatment studies and was not addressed.
The study team also looked at sustained effects six months to a year after conclusion of training. Meta-analysis of two studies totaling 131 participants found a sustained small-to-medium improvement in inhibitory control, with negligible heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of three studies combining 182 participants found a sustained medium improvement in working memory, with moderate heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
The team concluded, “NFT is an effective intervention for improving executive function in children with ADHD, specifically inhibitory control and working memory. This approach demonstrates a more pronounced impact on working memory when extended beyond 1000 min [sic], with inhibitory control following closely behind. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that NFT may have sustained effects on both working memory and inhibitory control. Given the relatively small number of studies assessing long-term effects and the potential for publication bias, further research is necessary to confirm these effects.”
Moreover, because 1) RCTs are the gold standard, and the meta-analyses combined RCTs with non-RCTs, and 2) data from neurocognitive tasks was combined with data from more subjective and less accurate questionnaires, these meta-analysis results should be interpreted with further caution.
*Heterogeneity refers to the rate of variation between individual study outcomes. High heterogeneity means that there was substantial variation in the results. When a meta-anaylysis has high heterogeneity, it suggests that the studies differ significantly in their populations, methods, interventions, or outcomes, making the combined result much less reliable.
Many news outlets have reported an increase – or surge – in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, diagnoses in both children and adults. At the same time, health care providers, teachers and school systems have reported an uptick in requests for ADHD assessments.
These reports have led some experts and parents to wonder whether ADHD is being overdiagnosed and overtreated.
As researchers who have spent our careers studying neurodevelopmental disorders like ADHD, we are concerned that fears about widespread overdiagnosis are misplaced, perhaps based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the condition.
Discussions about overdiagnosis of ADHD imply that you either have it or you don’t.
However, when epidemiologists ask people in the general population about their symptoms of ADHD, some have a few symptoms, some have a moderate level, and a few have lots of symptoms. But there is no clear dividing line between those who are diagnosed with ADHD and those who are not, since ADHD – much like blood pressure – occurs on a spectrum.
Treating mild ADHD is similar to treating mild high blood pressure – it depends on the situation. Care can be helpful when a doctor considers the details of a person’s daily life and how much the symptoms are affecting them.
Not only can ADHD symptoms be very different from person to person, but research shows that ADHD symptoms can change within an individual. For example, symptoms become more severe when the challenges of life increase.
ADHD symptoms fluctuate depending on many factors, including whether the person is at school or home, whether they have had enough sleep, if they are under a great deal of stress or if they are taking medications or other substances. Someone who has mild ADHD may not experience many symptoms while they are on vacation and well rested, for example, but they may have impairing symptoms if they have a demanding job or school schedule and have not gotten enough sleep. These people may need treatment for ADHD in certain situations but may do just fine without treatment in other situations.
This is similar to what is seen in conditions like high blood pressure, which can change from day to day or from month to month, depending on a person’s diet, stress level and many other factors.
ADHD symptoms start in early childhood and typically are at their worst in mid-to late childhood. Thus, the average age of diagnosis is between 9 and 12 years old. This age is also the time when children are transitioning from elementary school to middle school and may also be experiencing changes in their environment that make their symptoms worse.
Classes can be more challenging beginning around fifth grade than in earlier grades. In addition, the transition to middle school typically means that children move from having all their subjects taught by one teacher in a single classroom to having to change classrooms with a different teacher for each class. These changes can exacerbate symptoms that were previously well-controlled. Symptoms can also wax and wane throughout life.
Psychiatric problems that often co-occur with ADHD, such as anxiety or depression, can worsen ADHD symptoms that are already present. These conditions can also mimic ADHD symptoms, making it difficult to know which to treat. High levels of stress leading to poorer sleep, and increased demands at work or school, can also exacerbate or cause ADHD-like symptoms.
Finally, the use of some substances, such as marijuana or sedatives, can worsen, or even cause, ADHD symptoms. In addition to making symptoms worse in someone who already has an ADHD diagnosis, these factors can also push someone who has mild symptoms into full-blown ADHD, at least for a short time.
The reverse is also true: Symptoms of ADHD can be minimized or reversed in people who do not meet full diagnostic criteria once the external cause is removed.
Clinicians diagnose ADHD based on symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. To make an ADHD diagnosis in children, six or more symptoms in at least one of these three categories must be present. For adults, five or more symptoms are required, but they must begin in childhood. For all ages, the symptoms must cause serious problems in at least two areas of life, such as home, school or work.
Current estimates show that the strict prevalence of ADHD is about 5% in children. In young adults, the figure drops to 3%, and it is less than 1% after age 60. Researchers use the term “strict prevalence” to mean the percentage of people who meet all of the criteria for ADHD based on epidemiological studies. It is an important number because it provides clinicians and scientists with an estimate on how many people are expected to have ADHD in a given group of people.
In contrast, the “diagnosed prevalence” is the percentage of people who have been diagnosed with ADHD based on real-world assessments by health care professionals. The diagnosed prevalence in the U.S. and Canada ranges from 7.5% to 11.1% in children under age 18. These rates are quite a bit higher than the strict prevalence of 5%.
Some researchers claim that the difference between the diagnosed prevalence and the strict prevalence means that ADHD is overdiagnosed.
We disagree. In clinical practice, the diagnostic rules allow a patient to be diagnosed with ADHD if they have most of the symptoms that cause distress, impairment or both, even when they don’t meet the full criteria. And much evidence shows that increases in the diagnostic prevalence can be attributed to diagnosing milder cases that may have been missed previously. The validity of these mild diagnoses is well-documented.
Consider children who have five inattentive symptoms and five hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. These children would not meet strict diagnostic criteria for ADHD even though they clearly have a lot of ADHD symptoms. But in clinical practice, these children would be diagnosed with ADHD if they had marked distress, disability or both because of their symptoms – in other words, if the symptoms were interfering substantially with their everyday lives.
So it makes sense that the diagnosed prevalence of ADHD is substantially higher than the strict prevalence.
People who are concerned about overdiagnosis commonly worry that people are taking medications they don’t need or that they are diverting resources away from those who need it more. Other concerns are that people may experience side effects from the medications, or that they may be stigmatized by a diagnosis.
Those concerns are important. However, there is strong evidence that underdiagnosis and undertreatment of ADHD lead to serious negative outcomes in school, work, mental health and quality of life.
In other words, the risks of not treating ADHD are well-established. In contrast, the potential harms of overdiagnosis remain largely unproven.
It is important to consider how to manage the growing number of milder cases, however. Research suggests that children and adults with less severe ADHD symptoms may benefit less from medication than those with more severe symptoms.
This raises an important question: How much benefit is enough to justify treatment? These are decisions best made in conversations between clinicians, patients and caregivers.
Because ADHD symptoms can shift with age, stress, environment and other life circumstances, treatment needs to be flexible. For some, simple adjustments like classroom seating changes, better sleep or reduced stress may be enough. For others, medication, behavior therapy, or a combination of these interventions may be necessary. The key is a personalized approach that adapts as patients’ needs evolve over time.
Executive function impairment is a key feature of ADHD, with its severity linked to the intensity of ADHD symptoms. Executive function involves managing complex cognitive tasks for organized behavior and includes three main areas: inhibitory control (suppressing impulsive actions), working memory (holding information briefly), and cognitive flexibility (switching between different mental tasks). Improving executive functions is a critical objective in the management of ADHD.
Recent studies show that exercise interventions can enhance executive function in individuals with ADHD. Unlike traditional medications, which are costly and may cause side effects such as headaches, nausea, or growth issues, exercise can be incorporated into daily routines of children and adolescents without negative reactions.
Some studies report that aerobic exercise does not significantly improve executive function. However, most past reviews of aerobic exercise effects on executive function have focused on people without ADHD, with few examining interventions for children or adolescents with ADHD.
The Study:
A Chinese and South Korean study team conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed published literature to perform meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically focused on aerobic exercise interventions for children and adolescents with ADHD.
All studies included were randomized controlled trials involving participants aged 6 to 18 years who had been clinically diagnosed with ADHD. The interventions consisted of various forms of aerobic exercise, while the control groups engaged in either non-exercise activities or daily routines. Each study was required to report at least one outcome measure with usable data for calculating the effect size on executive functioning.
The Results:
Meta-analysis of fifteen RCTs combining 653 children and adolescents with ADHD reported a medium to large effect size improvement in inhibitory control. There was no sign of publication bias, but wide heterogeneity (variation) in outcomes among studies.
Six to eight weeks of aerobic exercise produced modest improvements, with much greater gains seen after twelve weeks. Hour-long sessions were as effective as longer ones. Moderate intensity exercise proved more beneficial than vigorous intensity.
Meta-analysis of eight RCTs combining 399 children and adolescents with ADHD produced a medium effect size improvement in working memory. There was no sign of publication bias, and heterogeneity was moderate.
Once again, six to eight weeks of aerobic exercise produced modest improvements, with much greater gains seen after twelve weeks. Hour-long sessions were as effective as longer ones. But in this case moderate-to-vigorous intensity yielded the best results.
Meta-analysis of ten RCTs combining 443 children and adolescents with ADHD was associated with a medium to large effect size improvement in cognitive flexibility. There was no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity. Neither the length of treatment, session time, or intensity affected the outcome.
The Take-Away:
The team concluded, “Our study indicates that aerobic exercise interventions have a positive impact with a moderate effect size on inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility in children and adolescents with ADHD. However, the effectiveness of the intervention is influenced by factors such as the intervention period, frequency, session durations, intensity, and the choice between acute or chronic exercise. Specifically, chronic aerobic exercise interventions lasting 12 weeks or longer, with a frequency of 3 to 5 sessions per week, session durations of 60 min or more, and intensities that are moderate or moderate-to-vigorous, have the greatest overall effect… caution should be exercised when interpreting these findings due to the significant heterogeneity in inhibitory control and working memory.”
_logo%201.svg)
