Sedentary time is not independently related to postural stability or leg strength in women 50–67 years old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research on sedentary behaviour has focused on cardiometabolic outcomes and markers of metabolic dysfunction, while neuromuscular outcomes have received less attention. The objective of the present study was to determine whether sedentary time is negatively associated with laboratory-based measures of lower body muscular strength and postural stability in middle-aged women. Forty-nine women (56.6 ± 4.1 years) participated in the study. Participants wore an ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer for 7 days to quantify sedentary time and physical activity. Following a familiarization session, assessments of lower body muscular strength and postural stability were performed. Peak torque of knee extensors and flexors was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer. Postural stability was assessed using computerized dynamic posturography and a composite equilibrium score (CES) was calculated. Participants spent 9.4 ± 1.3 h per day (65% of wear time) sedentary and 28.2 ± 17.3 min per day (3.3% of wear time) in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Postural stability and relative peak torque of the knee flexors were significantly associated with time spent sedentary (r = -0.35, p = 0.01 and r = -0.31, p = 0.03, respectively). Multiple linear regression analyses showed that after adjusting for MVPA, sedentary time was not significantly related to either CES or peak torque of the knee extensors or flexors. In contrast to our hypothesis, postural stability and leg strength were not independently related to sedentary time. While sedentary behaviour may be an important risk factor for cardiometabolic disease, the present results suggest MVPA may be more important to neuromuscular outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".