Key result
Cardiovascular studies fail to define race, with 78% omitting definitions and positioning White participants as standard.
Why the study?
The review sought to examine whether and how race is used to explain differences in cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular health among racial and ethnic populations in the United States in peer-reviewed research.
A scoping review reveals that most U.S. studies on cardiovascular health and fitness fail to define race and often position White participants as the standard, highlighting a need for better sociocultural contextualization.
In this scoping review, we examine whether and how race is used to explain differences in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and/or cardiovascular health (CVH) among racial/ethnic populations living in the United States in peer-reviewed research. Searching eight databases from their inception, and informed by the Population, Concept, and Context framework, our search yielded 232 studies ( N = 232) published in English. Seventy-eight percent of included studies (n = 181) did not define race; 45% (n = 105) positioned White participants as the standard for CVH and CRF metrics, and only 7% (n = 17) of the studies used sociocultural explanations to discuss possible mechanisms of racial differences in CRF and CVH outcomes. Findings are interpreted as an indication of how “white logic” informs research pertaining to CRF and CVH. A series of recommendations are provided to help kinesiological scholars avoid reductionist characterizations of “race” through their research, thus better aligning with the National Academy of Kinesiology’s social justice mission.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Justin et al. (2025) conducted a review in Cardiovascular health and cardiorespiratory fitness (n=232). Use of race in research was evaluated on Definition and use of race to explain differences in cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular health. Among 232 studies, 78% did not define race, 45% positioned White participants as the standard, and only 7% used sociocultural explanations for racial differences in cardiovascular outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: