LONGITUDINAL CHANGES IN AEROBIC FITNESS AMONG OLDER ADULTS IN A COMMUNITY PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PROGRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show decline in aerobic fitness with age; however declines are smaller in cross-sectional studies. PURPOSE To determine the rate of change in aerobic fitness, indexed as maximal metabolic equivalents (METmax), in older adults in a community physical activity program over 4 to 14 yrs. METHODS We examined a sample of 194 self-referred community-dwelling older adults, 63 men (mean age 69.3 ± 6.6 yrs) and 131 women (66.0 ± 6.9 yrs), who underwent 5 or more symptom-limited treadmill exercise tests over a 4 to 14 yr interval (follow-up 7.4 ± 1.8 and 7.2 ± 2.5 yrs respectively). Subjects trained in a supervised program according to CDC/ACSM guidelines. RESULTS Baseline METmax for men was significantly higher compared to women (8.59 ± 2.25 vs 7.57 ± 2.08, p = .003 respectively). Final METmax significantly increased for both men and women (10.18 ± 2.29 and 9.58 ± 2.28, p = .001 respectively). The relative rate of change in METmax over the follow-up period was +3.09 ± 3.28\% per yr for men and +4.17 ± 3.89\% per yr for women. When expressed in absolute terms, the mean annual change over the same period was +1.67 ± 1.57 and +2.01 ± 1.61 METmax per yr respectively. When stratified into five physical fitness classifications based on initial METmax (eg. 3–4, 5–6, 7–8 METs), subjects in the moderate (7–8 METs) subgroup had the greatest change in METmax (+2.55 ± 1.05 and +2.41 ± 1.60, respectively, p = .001). Both men (+0.28 ± 1.34, p = .525) and women (+0.72 ± 1.07, p = .040) in the very high (11–13 METs) subgroup had the smallest change in METmax per year. When divided into six age groups based on initial age (eg. 55–59, 60–65, 66–70 yrs old), men aged 60–79 yrs old had the highest change in METmax (p < .002), while women aged 55–69 yrs old had the greatest change in METmax (p < .05). CONCLUSION Older men and women increased METmax with regular exercise training over a follow-up of 4 to 14 yrs. The increase appeared greatest in those who were at lower initial fitness levels and in the mid-older ages. Supported by CIHR.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".