Trends in aerobic fitness among Canadians, 1981 to 2007–2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public health surveillance systems often monitor physical activity trends, but fitness assessment is relatively rare. This study investigated secular changes in aerobic fitness among Canadian adults and children. Participants aged 8-69 years were from 2 nationally representative surveys, conducted in-home in 1981 and in mobile examination centers in 2007-2009. In both surveys, submaximal step tests using progressive age- and sex-specific exercise stages were completed after initial screening (Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire, heart rate, blood pressure). Between surveys, the step-test protocol had been modified to reduce underestimation of fitness among fitter and older individuals. Maximal oxygen uptake was estimated for adults using validated historical and updated prediction equations, adjusted to reflect protocol differences. Because these equations are not validated for young people, maximal aerobic power was predicted at a heart rate of 200 beats·min(-1) by regressing observed heart rates on the oxygen costs of stepping for children and youth who completed at least 2 exercise stages. Overall, despite protocol differences, we found that the aerobic fitness levels of Canadians were lower in 2007-2009 than in 1981, with declines apparent in all age and both sex groups, thereby increasing the number of those at risk of adverse health outcomes. Future work is required to validate prediction equations of aerobic fitness for young people to make it possible to compare fitness levels over the lifespan and across time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".