Adoption of Canada's Physical Activity Guide and Handbook for Older Adults: Impact on Functional Fitness and Energy Expenditure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated whether a behaviour change program, based on Canada's Physical Activity Guide and Handbook to Healthy Active Living for Older Adults (Health Canada, 1999a), would elicit greater benefits than adoption of the guide and handbook alone. Fifteen older adults received the guide and accompanying handbook and completed the 8-week behaviour change program (mean age 73.2 +/- 5.2 yrs), while 14 others received only the guide and handbook (mean age 76.8 +/- 10.0 yrs). Functional fitness (lower body strength/endurance, flexibility, agility/dynamic balance) (Rikli and Jones, 1999), and estimated energy expenditure (DiPietro et al., 1993) were measured at baseline and after 8 weeks. Lower body strength/endurance and agility/dynamic balance differed between groups at baseline, p < 0.05. All three functional fitness tests improved in both groups over time, p< 0.05. Estimated energy expended in physical activity increased in both groups over time, p < 0.05; however, there was a significantly greater increase in the behaviour-change group (Group x Time interaction, p < 0.05). Participant response to using the guide and handbook was positive. These results indicate that introduction to Canada's Physical Activity Guide and Handbook to Healthy Active Living for Older Adults leads to benefits, whether or not accompanied by program supports. The group receiving the behaviour change program had a greater increase in energy expenditure, which suggests that such an intervention may ultimately lead to greater health benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".