Achieving the daily step goal of 10,000 steps: The experience of a Canadian family attached to pedometers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health experts recommend daily step goals of 10,000 steps for adults and 12,000 steps for youths to achieve a healthy active living. This article reports the findings of a Canadian family project to investigate whether the recommended daily step goals are achievable in a real life setting, and suggests ways to increase the daily steps to meet the goal. The family project also provides an example to encourage more Canadians to conduct family projects on healthy living. METHODS: This is a pilot feasibility study. A Canadian family was recruited for the study, with 4 volunteers (father, mother, son and daughter). Each volunteer was asked to wear a pedometer and to record daily steps for three time periods of each day during a 2-month period. Both minimal routine steps, and additional steps from special non-routine activities, were recorded at work, school and home. RESULTS: The mean number of daily steps from routine minimal daily activities for the family was 6685 steps in a day (16 hr, approx 400 steps/hr). There was thus a mean deficit of 4315 steps per day, or approximately 30,000 steps per week, from the goal (10,000 steps for adults; 12,000 steps for youths). Special activities that were found to effectively increase the steps above the routine level include: walking at brisk pace, grocery shopping, window shopping in a mall, going to an entertainment centre, and attending parties (such as to celebrate the holiday season and birthdays). DISCUSSION: To increase our daily steps to meet the daily step goal, a new culture is recommended: "get off the chair". By definition, sitting on a chair precludes the opportunity to walk. We encourage people to get off the chair, to go shopping, and to go partying, as a practical and fun way to increase the daily steps. This paper is a call for increased physical activity to meet the daily step goal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".