The "Fit but Fat" paradigm addressed using accelerometer-determined physical activity data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No studies have addressed the "fit but fat" paradigm using accelerometry data. AIM: The study was to determine if 1) higher levels of accelerometer-determined physical activity are favorably associated with biomarkers in overweight or obese persons (objective 1); and 2) overweight or obese individuals who are sufficiently active have better or similar biomarker levels than normal weight persons who are not sufficiently active (objective 2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were analyzed and included 5,146 participants aged 20-85 years. RESULTS: Regarding objective 1, obese active individuals had more favorable waist circumference, C-reactive protein, white blood cells, and neutrophil levels when compared to obese inactive individuals; similar results were found for overweight adults. Regarding objective 2, there were no significant differences between normal weight inactive individuals and overweight active individuals for nearly all biomarkers. Similarly, there were no significant differences between normal weight inactive individuals and obese active individuals for white blood cells, neutrophils, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, or homocysteine. CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity has a protective effect on biomarkers in normal, overweight, and obese individuals, and overweight (not obese) active individuals have a similar cardiovascular profile than normal weight 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".