Physical Activity Intensity and Risk of Overweight and Adiposity in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity recommendations for children focus on duration of activity and underemphasize intensity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between physical activity (intensity and duration) and the odds of being overweight, >20% body fat and >25% body fat. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Body fat, BMI and physical activity (accelerometry) were measured in children (n = 251) aged 8-10 years. Physical activity was quantified as time in moderate physical activity (MPA) and vigorous physical activity (VPA). RESULTS: Prevalence of overweight and obesity were 18 and 11.6%, respectively. Regression indicated that VPA, not MPA, is associated with body fat (r = 0.35, P < 0.001) and BMI (r = 0.26, P < 0.001). Odds ratio demonstrated a significant impact of MPA and VPA on body composition. Children performing < or =5 min/day of VPA are 4.0 times more likely to have > or =20% body fat (P < 0.001), 2.9 times more likely to have > or =25% body fat (P < 0.05) and 5.2 times more likely to be classified as overweight (P < 0.01) compared to children performing > or =15 min/day. Those performing < or =15 min/day of MPA vs. >45 min/day MPA are at 4.2 increased odds of having > or =20% body fat (P < 0.001), and 3.0 increased odds of having > or =25% (P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Lower durations of both MPA and VPA are associated with increased odds of overweight and adiposity. Forty-five minutes of MPA and fifteen minutes of VPA were associated with reduced body fat and BMI. We recommend that these amounts are used to develop minimum physical activity intensity guidelines for the prevention and treatment of obesity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".