Physical Activity Profile of Old Order Amish, Mennonite, and Contemporary Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explored the influence of modernity on the physical activity behaviors (e.g., intensity and timing) of children. METHODS: Children aged 8-13 yr living a traditional lifestyle (Old Order Amish [OOA], n = 68; Old Order Mennonite [OOM], n = 120) were compared with children living a contemporary lifestyle (rural Saskatchewan [RSK], n = 132; urban Saskatchewan [USK], n = 93). Physical activity was objectively assessed for seven consecutive days using Actigraph 7164 accelerometers. Custom software was used to reduce the raw accelerometer data into standardized outcome variables. RESULTS: On weekdays, there were group differences in moderate physical activity between all lifestyle groups (OOA > OOM > USK > RSK). On the weekend, the group differences in moderate physical activity persisted between, but not within, lifestyle groups (OOA = OOM > USK = RSK). During school hours, all groups had similar activity and inactivity periods; however, they differed in magnitude, with the OOA and OOM being both more sedentary and more active. In comparison with the children in school, the OOA and the OOM children had 44% lower sedentary time out of school compared with only 15% lower for RSK and USK children. CONCLUSIONS: Although cross sectional, these data suggest that contemporary/modern living is associated with lower levels of moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activity compared with lifestyles representative of earlier generations. Analyzing the physical activity and inactivity patterns of traditional lifestyle groups such as the OOA and the OOM can provide valuable insight into the quantity and quality of physical activity necessary to promote health.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".