Does Physical Activity During Adolescence Influence Male Lean Tissue Mass At 40 Years Of Age?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physical activity (PA) is associated with beneficial changes in lean tissue mass during all stages of life. Our group has recently shown that habitual PA is an independent predictor of lean mass development in adolescence. However there remains controversy as to the effects of adolescent activity on subsequent adult lean body mass. It is hypothesized that individuals with greater physical activity levels in adolescence will have significantly greater lean tissue mass in later life. The lack of evidence to support this claim is related to the fact that there is a lack of prospective data measuring individuals in both childhood and adulthood METHODS: Participants were part of the ongoing Saskatchewan Growth and Development Study initiated in 1963. In brief, 207 8-year old boys were assessed annually for 10 consecutive years, 57 of whom were assessed again at 40 years of age. During childhood and adolescence PA was assessed by questionnaires and participants were tertiled into high, average, and low PA categories. At 40 years of age, lean tissue mass (LTM) was assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with adult age, height, weight and PA inputted as covariates, was used to assess childhood PA group differences. RESULTS: It was found that the mean adjusted LTM (mean±SE) in the high childhood PA category (61.23 ± 0.92 kg) was significantly different than that of the lower childhood physical activity groups (59.33 ± 0.94kg and 58.26 ± 0.65kg, p>0.05) CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that physical activity during adolescence has a positive influence on adult lean tissue mass. However it is unclear whether the effects of childhood PA per say or a behavioral pattern of lifelong PA is responsible for these findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".