Just 10 minutes of very slow jogging improved mood and executive function in young adults.

Even running at a speed almost identical to a normal walk can improve mood and the brain's ability to suppress distracting information after just ten minutes. This is the conclusion reached by researchers at the University of Tsukuba, who studied the response of 24 healthy young adults to very slow treadmill running. The intensity of the exercise was only approximately 35% of the individual's peak oxygen consumption, which corresponds to very light physical activity.

After a ten-minute run, participants completed the Stroop task, which requires inhibition of automatic responses and focused attention, more quickly. The effect size for interference time was Cohen's d of 0.57, meaning it was moderate. However, task accuracy did not change significantly: the advantage manifested itself primarily in the speed of processing conflicting information.

Simultaneously, functional near-infrared spectroscopy revealed increased activity in two regions of the left prefrontal cortex—the left dorsolateral prefrontal area and the left frontopolar area. Both structures are involved in behavioral control, goal retention, and the suppression of inappropriate responses. The neurophysiological effect sizes were also approximately d=0.55-0.57.

The most significant effect was on mood. After slow running, both subjective feelings of alertness and pleasure increased significantly: effect sizes were d = 1.53 and d = 0.98, respectively. Moreover, the more pronounced the rhythmic vertical head oscillations during running, the more participants reported an increase in pleasant emotional state. However, this relationship was correlational and does not yet prove that it is the mechanical "springiness" of running that improves mood.

Key parameter	Result
Participants	24 healthy young adults
Men	13
Women	11
Duration of the load	10 minutes
Intensity	35% of peak oxygen consumption
Average speed of men	5.46 ± 1.77 km/h
Average speed of women	3.86 ± 0.87 km/h
Average heart rate for men	104.8 beats/min
Average heart rate for women	107.0 beats/min
Executive functions	improved
Stroop task effect size	d=0.57
Vigor	increased significantly, d=1.53
Pleasure	increased, d=0.98
Brain activity	increased in two areas of the left prefrontal cortex
Vertical head vibrations and pleasure	r=0.409
DOI	10.1162/IMAG.a.1297

Why are scientists interested in very slow running?

The positive effects of physical activity on mood and cognitive function have long been known, but a significant portion of laboratory studies have been conducted on bicycle ergometers. Bicycles are convenient for researchers: the intensity is easy to set and maintain, and the head position is relatively stable, simplifying neurophysiological measurements. However, in everyday life, walking and running are much more natural forms of movement.

Previous studies by the same research group had already shown that a ten-minute moderate jog could improve performance on the Stroop task and alter prefrontal cortex activity. However, a crucial question remained: does this require significant physical exertion or does the brain respond to even the lightest form of jogging? The authors specifically sought to find the lower threshold at which a measurable cognitive effect could be maintained.

This has practical implications. Moderate jogging isn't for everyone: it can be difficult for those with low fitness levels, excess weight, advanced age, or simply a lack of exercise habits. If a similar short-term effect occurs at a pace comparable to brisk walking, the potential range of people able to utilize this type of exercise becomes significantly wider. This idea is one of the motivations behind the researchers' work.

The scientists weren't only interested in the energy cost of movement. Running differs from walking biomechanically: the body periodically lifts completely off the ground, and the center of mass and head perform more pronounced vertical oscillations. Therefore, the authors separately tested the hypothesis that these rhythmic movements may have a specific relationship to the emotional response to exercise.

How the study was conducted

The experiment involved 24 young Japanese adults, native speakers of Japanese. All were right-handed, non-smokers, had normal or corrected vision, and normal color perception. Participants did not report any neurological or psychiatric illnesses or conditions requiring medical treatment. One additional individual initially completed the experiment but was excluded from the analysis due to a significant statistical outlier on the Stroop task.

Each participant completed both experimental conditions on separate days. On one day, they ran very slowly on a treadmill for ten minutes; on the other, they sat on a chair placed on a stationary treadmill for ten minutes. The order of the conditions was randomized and counterbalanced, so approximately half of the participants started with one condition, and the rest with the other. This crossover design is particularly useful with small samples, as each person effectively serves as their own control.

Before the main experiment, the researchers determined individual peak oxygen consumption. The treadmill speed was then adjusted so that the slow running intensity was approximately 35% of this individual maximum. This ensured that the same physiological demands were not translated into a single, fixed speed for all participants: a more trained individual could move slightly faster, while a less trained individual could move more slowly.

Before and after resting or jogging, participants completed a Stroop color-word task and rated their emotional state using a two-dimensional mood scale. During the cognitive test, the researchers simultaneously recorded hemodynamic changes in the prefrontal cortex using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Heart rate, subjective exertion, and vertical head acceleration were also measured.

Neurophysiological measurements began approximately five minutes after the run, not immediately. The researchers first ensured that heart rate, end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration, and other physiological indicators had returned to baseline levels. This was done to ensure that increased skin blood flow after exercise would not be mistaken for changes in cerebral cortex activity. [1]

Stage	What happened
Definition of physical fitness	peak oxygen consumption test
Experiment 1	10 minutes of very slow jogging
Experiment 2	10 minutes of sitting rest
Order	randomized and balanced
Before and after	mood assessment and the Stroop task
Measuring the brain	functional near infrared spectroscopy
After running before brain measurement	about 5 minutes
Additional indicators	pulse, subjective load, head acceleration

How slow was this run?

The speed was indeed unusually slow for running. Men averaged 5.46 km/h, while women averaged 3.86 km/h. The authors note that the overall individual range was between 3 and 6 km/h. This is lower than the typical transition speed from walking to running, which for most adults is closer to 7 km/h.

That's why the participants had to maintain a running technique with very small strides. The researcher visually verified that they were actually running and not simply walking. This resulted in a kind of "low-speed jogging," which includes the characteristic phases and vertical body oscillations, but the energy load remains very low.

Physiological indicators confirm the ease of the exercise. The average heart rate was approximately 105 beats per minute for men and 107 for women. Subjective assessment of the exercise's severity on the Borg scale was approximately 8.5-8.7, corresponding to the "very easy" level.

Therefore, the result cannot be explained by the participants actually performing a hidden intense workout. The study was specifically designed to test a very light load, and the physiological data confirm that this goal was achieved. This is where the study differs from numerous studies that have found cognitive effects after moderate or intense running.

How light was the load?

Indicator	Men	Women
Speed	5.46 ± 1.77 km/h	3.86 ± 0.87 km/h
Pulse	104.84 ± 7.61	107.0 ± 9.39 beats/min
Severity assessment	8.50 ± 1.95	8.68 ± 1.27
Target intensity	35% of peak oxygen consumption	35%
Classification	very light	very light

Ten minutes of running improved the ability to suppress interfering information.

The researchers assessed executive functions using the Stroop task. In it, a person is shown words denoting colors, with the meaning of the word sometimes conflicting with the actual color of the label. For example, the word "yellow" might be written in red. To answer correctly, the brain must suppress the automatic reading of the word's meaning and focus on the color.

This conflict situation consistently increased response time and the number of errors across all experimental conditions, indicating that the classic Stroop effect was reliably evident. After very slow running, the response delay due to conflict decreased more significantly than after ten minutes of sitting. The statistical interaction between time and condition was F(1,23) = 7.66, and a direct comparison of change in reaction time yielded t(23) = 2.77.

The difference between running and rest was Cohen's d of 0.57, which is generally considered a moderate effect size. This means that the result was not only formally statistically significant but also of significant magnitude for a short, one-time intervention. The error rate did not change statistically significantly: the interaction term for error rate was p=0.162.

The latter is particularly important. If the participants simply started pressing buttons faster after running, at the cost of more errors, it would be more difficult to talk about an improvement in executive function. But the study shows a reduction in interference time without a significant decrease in accuracy. This supports the interpretation that after the exercise, the participants actually found it somewhat easier to resolve conflicts between competing stimuli.

What are executive functions and why a small improvement might be important?

Executive functions are a group of cognitive processes that enable a person to maintain a goal, switch between rules, inhibit automatic responses, and choose an action in the face of competing information. They are especially important in learning, working, driving, planning, and completing complex tasks when an automatic response is not the most appropriate.

One of the central brain hubs of these processes is the prefrontal cortex. When faced with conflict in a Stroop task, the brain must determine which information is currently important, suppress the interfering response, and maintain the correct rule until the action is completed. This is why the Stroop task has been used for decades as a relatively simple experimental measure of executive control.

In the new study, the effect occurred after just ten minutes of extremely light exercise. This doesn't mean that a person becomes "smarter" or experiences a long-term improvement in intelligence after a slow jog. Only a short-term change in one specific executive function was measured immediately after a single bout of exercise.

Nevertheless, this acute effect is potentially interesting precisely because of its low cost. If a person doesn't require a strenuous workout, but only a short period of easy running, such a technique could theoretically be used before activities that require concentration. However, to draw such a practical conclusion, research outside the laboratory and with more complex objectives is needed.

Two areas of the left prefrontal cortex were more active in the brain.

Even before exercise, the Stroop task activated four of the studied regions: the left dorsolateral and left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, as well as the left and right frontopolar areas. After very slow running, the response in two of these regions became significantly stronger than after a control rest period.

The left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was the first. It is particularly closely associated with working memory, cognitive control, rule retention, and suppression of competing information. For this region, the condition × time interaction was F(1,23)=7.73, and a direct comparison of changes in oxygenated hemoglobin after running and rest yielded d=0.57.

The second region was the left frontopolar cortex, located closer to the anterior pole of the frontal lobes. It is associated with coordinating complex goals, switching between behavioral options, and integrating information. Here, the effect size after running was d = 0.55.

Thus, the behavioral improvement was accompanied by physiological changes specifically in the areas required for test performance. This makes the result more convincing than a faster response rate alone. However, an increase in hemodynamic response does not automatically mean that the brain has become more "efficient": it indicates a change in the region's involvement, and the measurement method does not allow one to determine the precise cellular mechanism of such a response.

Indicator	The effect after running
Stroop interference time	decreased
Behavioral effect size	d=0.57
Errors	there is no significant change
Left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex	activation increased, d=0.57
Left frontopolar area	activation increased, d=0.55
Left ventrolateral area	no additional significant effect of running was shown
Right frontopolar area	no additional significant effect of running was shown

The effect on mood was even stronger than the cognitive effect.

Participants rated their current emotional state in two dimensions: their level of alertness and the degree of pleasantness of their emotional state. These variables changed differently after sitting and after running. For alertness, the interaction between condition and time was highly significant (F(1,23)=55.84), while for pleasure, it was F(1,23)=22.96.

When directly comparing changes after running and rest, vigor increased with an effect size of d=1.53. This is a large statistical effect. For feelings of pleasure, the effect size was d=0.98, also large. Both results had p<0.001.

What's special here is the combination of two effects. Very light jogging didn't simply increase arousal—for example, by making people feel more excited or tense. At the same time, it also increased their emotional state. In other words, after ten minutes of exercise, participants felt both more energetic and better.

But it's important to remember that mood was assessed immediately after a single laboratory session. The study does not demonstrate that ten minutes of slow jogging treats depression, anxiety, or chronic fatigue. This is a study of short-term mood changes in healthy young people, not a clinical trial of a psychotherapeutic intervention.

Vertical head movements were unexpectedly linked to improved mood.

The researchers measured vertical head acceleration separately during slow jogging. The average was approximately 2.14 g for men and 2.22 g for women. These fluctuations are caused by the body's rhythmic up-and-down motion with each running stride.

The greater the vertical acceleration, the more people reported increased enjoyment after running. The correlation coefficient was r = 0.409, p < 0.05. According to the authors' calculations, individual differences in this indicator explained approximately 17% of the variance in the improvement in positive mood.

However, no significant association was found between vertical oscillations and improvement in the Stroop test: r was only -0.03. There was also no convincing correlation with increased activity in the left dorsolateral or frontopolar cortex, nor with increased alertness. Therefore, a possible mechanical component, if it exists, appears more specific to pleasant emotional experiences than to cognitive enhancement.

The authors themselves view this analysis as exploratory, not causal. The experiment did not include a separate walking condition with reduced vertical oscillations, nor was there a way to artificially alter head movements while maintaining the same energy load. Therefore, it's not yet possible to conclude that "head bouncing improves mood"—it's merely an interesting association that awaits further experimental verification.

What did the vertical head acceleration analysis show?

Connection	Coefficient
Head acceleration ↔ pleasure	r=0.409, p<0.05
Speed Up ↔ Scab Improvement	r=−0.03
Acceleration ↔ left dorsolateral cortex	r=−0.04
Acceleration ↔ left frontopolar region	r=−0.34
Acceleration ↔ vigor	r=−0.04
Explained variation of pleasure	≈17%

Can running affect the brain beyond just raising your heart rate?

The short-term cognitive effects of exercise are typically attributed to changes in blood circulation, neurotransmitters, and overall activation of the nervous system. During exercise, heart rate increases, vascular tone changes, and the brain receives numerous signals from muscles and internal organs. These processes may well be involved in the effect of slow running.

But running also has a pronounced rhythmic sensorimotor component. With each step, the brain receives synchronized signals from the feet, joints, vestibular system, trunk muscles, and head. This regular sensory structure differs from sitting and, to a certain extent, from cycling.

The authors also note animal studies in which vertical mechanical accelerations may influence physiological processes in the brain. However, the generalization of these results to human mood remains hypothetical. A correlation of r = 0.409 in a sample of 24 people is intriguing enough for further experimentation, but too weak a basis for a confident mechanistic conclusion.

A future experiment could compare three conditions with similar energy expenditure: walking, very slow running, and another rhythmic form of exercise. If mood improvement is greater with vertically accelerated movements and the effect depends on the magnitude of mechanical stimulation, the hypothesis would be significantly stronger.

Why the study didn't include regular walking

The most obvious question about the study is precisely this: if the speed was approximately 3-6 km/h, why did the scientists compare slow running only with sitting, and not with regular walking at the same speed? The authors explicitly acknowledge the lack of walking as one of the study's limitations.

Because of this, it's impossible to say that running is better than walking for mood or executive function. Perhaps ten minutes of brisk or moderate walking at a similar physiological intensity would have produced the same result. The study itself answers a more specific question: can very slow jogging produce a measurable effect compared to no exercise? The answer is yes.

The absence of walking is particularly important for the vertical acceleration hypothesis. If the running phase and rhythmic body oscillations play a complementary role, then running and walking should differ in emotional outcome at the same speed. Such a direct comparison has not yet been made.

Therefore, the practical recommendation to "definitely run, not walk" does not follow from this study. For someone who finds running uncomfortable due to knee, hip, balance, or cardiovascular limitations, the study does not provide a reason to abandon the safety of walking for the supposed additional impact of running vibrations.

How scientists measured brain activity

The study utilized functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Infrared light sources and sensors are placed on the scalp, partially penetrating the tissue. Changes in light absorption can be used to assess the concentrations of oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin in the superficial cortex.

When a specific brain region is more actively engaged in a task, local blood flow and oxygenation typically increase. This is why changes in oxygenated hemoglobin are used as an indirect indicator of functional activity. This method is well suited for studying the prefrontal cortex and is significantly easier to combine with physical exercise than conventional functional magnetic resonance imaging.

However, the method has a problem: some of the measured light passes through the skin and superficial vessels. After physical exertion, skin blood flow also increases, and without special measures, this change can be mistakenly interpreted as a brain signal. The device used did not have short-range channels, which are now considered one of the best ways to isolate the superficial component. The authors explicitly cite this as a potential limitation.

The researchers took several measures to mitigate this problem. The neurophysiological test began after a five-minute pause, when peripheral physiological parameters had already returned to baseline. They also conducted an additional analysis with algorithmic separation of hemodynamic components, and the main results were preserved. This increases confidence, but does not completely eliminate the methodological limitation.

Does stronger prefrontal activation mean the brain is working better?

Not necessarily. Neuroimaging studies are often misinterpreted based on the principle that "the more activity, the better." In reality, an enhanced hemodynamic response may indicate greater engagement of the relevant network, but in some situations, a more efficient brain actually performs the same task with less energy expenditure.

In this case, the argument for a functionally beneficial change lies in the coincidence of the neurophysiological and behavioral results. After running, the response of areas involved in conflict control increased, while Stroop interference time decreased. This coincidence is far more meaningful than a single change in the spectroscopic signal.

However, the study does not demonstrate that increased activity in these areas directly caused the improved results. Proving causality would require, for example, temporarily altering the activity of a specific area using non-invasive stimulation methods and observing whether the effect of running disappears.

Therefore, the most accurate formulation is that very slow running was accompanied by both improved executive control and increased task-related responses in certain areas of the left prefrontal cortex. This supports the proposed neural mechanism, but does not prove it definitively.

How convincing are the statistics with only 24 participants?

A crossover design helps with small sample sizes. Since the same person participates in both the running and control trials, individual differences in intelligence, fitness, personality, and most consistent characteristics automatically diminish their influence. This is why 24 participants in such an experiment are more informative than two independent groups of 12.

However, the sample size remains small. The authors conducted a post hoc sensitivity analysis and found that 24 participants provided approximately 80% statistical power to detect effects of approximately d≥0.60. This means the study could easily have missed small effects.

Some of the effects found were indeed around this threshold: d=0.55-0.57 for executive function and prefrontal activity. The mood effects were significantly larger, with d=0.98 and 1.53. This pattern appears internally consistent, but precise effect sizes in small samples tend to fluctuate significantly when replicating a study.

The correlation between vertical acceleration and pleasure should be treated with particular caution. With n = 24, even one or two unusual participants can significantly alter the correlation coefficient. Therefore, a value of r = 0.409 is much more useful as a basis for a new hypothesis than as an established physiological pattern.

Who could potentially benefit from this type of exercise?

The authors suggest that very slow jogging may be an accessible option for people who find regular jogging too strenuous. Its low cardiovascular demands and walking-like speed make this format significantly less daunting for the untrained. The University of Tsukuba specifically emphasizes its potential accessibility for those with limited fitness.

However, the study participants were healthy young adults, not older adults, patients with heart disease, arthritis, obesity, or neurological disorders. Therefore, the phrase "suitable for people with limited physical fitness" should be taken as a hypothesis about convenience, not as a proven clinical trial result.

Furthermore, low metabolic intensity doesn't mean a lack of mechanical load. Even very slow running differs from walking in its flight phase and repetitive impact loading. For someone with severe osteoarthritis, recent joint surgery, poor balance, or a high risk of falls, walking or cycling may be safer.

Therefore, the main practical implication isn't that everyone should replace walking with jogging. The study points to a more general principle: short-term improvements in mood and executive control may not require intense exercise. Even very light activity can produce measurable changes in healthy young people.

Is it okay to run for ten minutes before work or school?

In terms of duration, this is an attractive idea. Ten minutes is easy to fit into a workday, and the intensity is low enough that people don't experience significant fatigue. Moreover, the researchers conducted the cognitive test after acute physiological indicators had already returned to baseline.

The results suggest that a brief period of movement before a mental task can temporarily facilitate executive control. However, the study used only one laboratory test, consisting of 30 trials and lasting approximately six and a half minutes. It did not test performance in programming, learning, reading complex text, or long hours of office work.

The duration of the effect is also unknown. Scientists demonstrated a change shortly after the exercise, but did not measure whether the benefit persisted after 30 minutes, two hours, or the entire workday. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that a single ten-minute run provides a lasting cognitive benefit.

Nevertheless, this is a reasonable hypothesis for future applied research. If the effect is replicated in larger samples and lasts at least half an hour, a very light ten-minute workout could be an interesting way to briefly "switch" before engaging in activities that require concentration.

The study does not prove long-term brain protection.

The title of the study suggests the benefits of slow jogging for brain function, but the experiment only assessed the acute effects of a single ten-minute session. It provides no data on changes in brain structure, a reduced risk of dementia, or long-term improvements in cognitive abilities.

Regular physical activity in general is associated with numerous long-term health benefits, but this extensive literature cannot be directly applied to a specific protocol of "10 minutes of running at 35% of peak oxygen consumption." This would require a separate study lasting months or years.

It's also unknown whether the acute response persists with daily repetition. Perhaps the body adapts and the effect diminishes, or perhaps regular episodes create lasting changes over time. Both possibilities are consistent with current data.

Therefore, the new study is important primarily as evidence of the minimum effective intensity for short-term response. It shows that distinct changes in mood and executive function occur even with a load that the participants themselves perceived as very light.

Main limitations of the study

The main limitation is the study's limited number of participants, all of whom were young, healthy individuals. Men had an average age of 23.4 years, and women 20.6 years. Therefore, it cannot be proven that the same effect would be observed in people aged 50, 70, or 80, or in patients with depression, stroke, or cognitive impairment.

The second limitation is the lack of a walking group. This makes it impossible to determine whether the result is due specifically to the running form of movement or whether a similar benefit would have been achieved after ten minutes of walking at a comparable metabolic intensity. This is particularly important for interpreting vertical head oscillations. The authors themselves cite such a comparison as a necessary avenue for future research.

The third issue relates to neuroimaging. The device used did not have short-range channels for direct measurement of superficial blood flow. Although the researchers observed a five-minute pause and confirmed the results with additional filtering of the systemic signals, it is impossible to completely rule out the influence of vascular factors.

Fourth, only a single short session was studied. The duration of the cognitive effect, the response to daily training, and possible adaptations are unknown. The study also did not compare different durations—for example, three, five, ten, and twenty minutes—so it cannot be concluded that ten minutes is the true minimum threshold.

Finally, mood improvement was measured by self-report, and the hypothesis about the role of vertical oscillation is based on correlation. Even a relatively strong association does not prove causation. To test this, it will be necessary to experimentally separate the metabolic effect of movement from the mechanical properties of the running gait.

Limitation	Why is this important?
Only 24 people	the exact effect sizes may be unstable
Young healthy adults only	the results cannot be automatically transferred to the elderly and patients
There is no walking condition	It is unknown whether running provides an advantage over walking.
One ten-minute session	the long-term effect has not been studied
One cognitive test	it is impossible to talk about improving all mental abilities
Spectroscopy without short channels	residual superficial vascular signal is possible
Head acceleration - correlation	the causal mechanism has not been proven
There are no clinical groups	the effect on depression and cognitive impairment is unknown

What needs to be tested next

The first logical experiment would be a direct comparison of sitting, walking, and very slow jogging at the same energy intensity. This will reveal whether jogging has its own advantage or whether the main factor is the very act of engaging in even a small amount of physical activity.

The second approach is to modify biomechanics. Stride frequency, stride length, or vertical oscillation can be varied under similar physiological loads. If the emotional effect systematically follows vertical acceleration, the hypothesis of a mechanical component becomes significantly stronger.

The third objective is to recruit more diverse participants. Of particular interest are older adults and those with low physical fitness, as it is for them that extremely light activity is potentially most appealing. The university group is already considering this as a practical extension of its research program.

Finally, long-term interventions are needed. If several weeks or months of very slow running improve baseline executive function or mood compared to walking and regular activity, then we can talk about not just a short-term laboratory effect but also a potential tool for maintaining cognitive health.

The main conclusion

A new randomized crossover study shows that even 10 minutes of very slow jogging at an intensity of about 35% of peak oxygen consumption can short-term improve executive control and mood in healthy young adults. The speed was only about 3-6 km/h—in the range at which a person might normally walk.

After jogging, the interference time in the Stroop task was reduced more significantly than after sitting, with a moderate effect size of d = 0.57. Concurrently, the task-related hemodynamic response of the left dorsolateral prefrontal and left frontopolar regions was enhanced, with d = 0.57 and 0.55, respectively.

The most significant change was emotional: vigor increased with an effect size of d=1.53, while pleasantness increased with an effect size of d=0.98. Vertical head acceleration during running was correlated with improved pleasure, r=0.409, but not with improved executive function or prefrontal activity.

Therefore, the most correct interpretation is that the short-term positive effects of physical activity on mood and certain executive functions likely do not require intense training. However, the study does not yet prove the superiority of slow jogging over walking, does not demonstrate long-term brain benefits, and does not allow the results to be generalized to older or sick individuals without further research.

News source

Damrongthai C., Kuwamizu R., Yamazaki Y., Aoike N., Lee D., Byun K., Torma F., Hyodo K., Churdchomjan W., Yassa MA, Adachi K., Soya H. Slow running benefits: Boosts in mood and facilitation of prefrontal cortex function even at very light intensity. Imaging Neuroscience. 2026;4:IMAG.a.1297. This article was indexed in PubMed as published on August 4, 2026; the publisher indicates an earlier online date of July 8, 2026. DOI: 10.1162/IMAG.a.1297.

This is a novel, randomized, crossover experimental study in humans. All 24 participants completed both a ten-minute session of very slow running and a control session of sedentary rest; the order was randomized. Therefore, the conclusion of a short-term difference between these two conditions is methodologically stronger than a simple observational association, although the small sample size and the lack of walking as an active control limit the generalizability of the results.

This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Science and Technology Agency, the University of Tsukuba's High Performance Research Program, and the Human High Performance Research Initiative. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This article is published under an open CC BY 4.0 license.