The Relationship Between Health Knowledge And Measures Of Health-related Physical Fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research suggests that individuals who have increased fitness knowledge via health education are more likely to be physically active and fit. However, literature delineating the relationship between health knowledge base and the components of health-related physical fitness is scarce and inconsistent. PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between health-related physical fitness knowledge (HRPFK) and objective measures of health-related physical fitness in adulthood. METHODS: Health knowledge was assessed in 18 F and 16 M adults (19-49 yr) via the FitSmart, a 50 question standardized multiple choice examination of HRPFK, which incorporates: concepts of fitness, scientific principles of exercise, components of physical fitness, effects of exercise on chronic disease risk factors, exercise prescription, as well as nutrition, injury prevention, and consumer issues. Health-related physical fitness was assessed using the Canadian Physical Activity Fitness and Lifestyle Approach (CPAFLA), which objectively measures: physical activity participation (PAP), body composition (BMI, Waist Circumference (WC), Sum Of 5 Skinfolds), aerobic fitness (mCAFT), composite musculoskeletal fitness (grip strength, push-ups, flexibility, partial curl-ups, vertical jump, leg power, back extension (BE)), and composite back fitness (PAP, WC, flexibility, curl-ups, BE). All measures were completed by a Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology-Certified Exercise Physiologist (CSEP-CEP). RESULTS: HRPFK was significantly correlated to composite musculoskeletal fitness (r=0.40). When controlling for socio-demographic variables (age, gender, income, & education), regression analyses showed that HRPFK was the strongest unique contributor to musculoskeletal fitness (standardized B=0.59, p<0.05). Within composite musculoskeletal fitness, there was a positive and significant correlation between HRFPK and push-ups (r=0.37), as well as HRPFK and partial curl-ups (r=0.41). CONCLUSION: HRPFK is a significant contributor to and correlate of health-related physical fitness in adulthood. Clearly, the concept of HRPFK warrants further investigation as it holds important implications for the development of future health promotion initiatives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".