THE EFFECT OF LEVEL OF ACTIVITY ON STRENGTH DEVELOPMENT IN MALES AGED 10 TO 16
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this project was to determine whether level of physical activity influences strength development during childhood. Out of 207 males from the Saskatchewan Growth and Development study (1964–1973), 78 were tested annually from ages 10 to 16 on various measures of strength. Using a rank order analysis based on self-report physical activity questionnaires completed annually from ages 7 to 16, the top 25% of participants were classified as active, the bottom 25% as inactive, and the middle 50% as average. Of the 78 males with complete strength data, 25 were classified as active, 40 as average, and 13 as inactive. The strength measurements were 7 maximal isometric tests (shoulder extension, elbow extension, wrist extension, wrist flexion, elbow flexion, knee extension, hip flexion) performed on the right side of the body using a strength chair and cable tensiometers. The scores from the 7 strength measures were added to obtain a total strength score. Participants in activity groups were compared based on chronological age (10–16), and maturational age (as measured by years from peak height velocity) to account for differences in growth and development. Data were analyzed using a multilevel model approach. In the multilevel model age, height, weight, and weight by height all had significant independent effects on total strength gain, in that the slope coefficients for these variables were greater than their respective standard error estimate (SEE). Maturational age did not make a significant contribution to the model. After adjusting for somatic growth it was found that physical activity group had a significant independent effect on total strength gain, indicated by the iterative generalized least squares estimate of the active group being 38.7 lb (SEE 8.2 lb) greater than the inactive group. No difference was seen between the average group and the inactive group. These results indicate that general physical activity levels had a significant impact on the development of strength in growing males over and above those associated with somatic growth and maturation. The active individuals demonstrated greater strength gains than the inactive individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".