Physical Fitness and the Metabolic Syndrome in Adults From the Quebec Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physically fit individuals have a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. However, it is unknown whether the associations between physical fitness and the metabolic syndrome are independent of total and abdominal adiposity. Physical fitness was defined as the physical work capacity on a cycle ergometer at heart rate of 150 bpm (PWC 150) in a sample of 158 men and 198 women 20-60 years of age. PWC 150 was adjusted for fat-free mass prior to the analyses. Percent body fat was estimated by hydrostatic weighing. Visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat were measured by computed tomography. The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was based on two definitions. The metabolic syndrome decreased with increasing fitness in men (approx. 6 times higher in less fit vs. most fit tertile, p < 0.05) and in women (approx. 4 times higher in less fit vs. most fit tertile, p < 0.05). Fitness was negatively associated with most individual components of the metabolic syndrome, except HDL-cholesterol for which the correlation was positive. However, in men and in women, the effects of physical fitness on the individual components of the metabolic syndrome were attenuated after considering total and abdominal adiposity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".