A cross-sectional examination of the physical fitness and selected health attributes of recreational all-terrain vehicle riders and off-road motorcyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were: (1) to characterize selected fitness and health attributes of two types of habitual recreational off-road vehicle riders - off-road motorcyclists and all-terrain vehicle riders; (2) to explore differences among riders in terms of vehicle type, age, and gender; and (3) to compare the fitness and health of riders to population norms and clinical health standards. Canadian off-road riders (n = 141) of both sexes aged 16 years and over were recruited through local and national off-road riding organizations. Anthropometry, fitness, and health measures of off-road motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle riders were compared with population norms, health standards, and physical activity guidelines. Off-road motorcycle riders had above average aerobic fitness (79th percentile), while all-terrain vehicle riders were lower than average (40th percentile). All riders had a healthy blood lipid profile and a low incidence of the metabolic syndrome (12.9%) compared with members of the general population. Off-road motorcycle riders had healthier body composition and fitness than all-terrain vehicle riders; however, the body composition of off-road motorcycle riders was no healthier than that of the general population and all-terrain vehicle riders were worse than the general population. Off-road motorcycle riders had healthier anthropometry and fitness than all-terrain vehicle riders and thus fewer health risk factors for future disease, demonstrating that the physiological profiles of off-road riders are dependent on vehicle type.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".