Canada’s physical activity guide recommendations are a low benchmark for Manitoba adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living (CPAG) is the national reference for messaging on physical activity for health benefits, yet few studies have examined population activity levels in relation to its recommendations. As part of the province-wide in motion initiative, we obtained a baseline measurement of the physical activity levels of adult Manitobans. Physical activity levels were benchmarked against CPAG recommendations and were compared with criteria used in previous surveys. A stratified random sample of adults from the 9 Regional Health Authorities outside of Winnipeg, and from the 12 Community Areas within the Winnipeg Health Region, was surveyed by telephone. Respondents (n = 6,536) reported all light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity of 10 min or more in the previous week. Intensity levels were corrected to reflect standard MET equivalents, using the Ainsworth Compendium. A total of 69.5% of respondents met the minimum CPAG requirements; however, only 29.1% of those did so with vigorous activity. Relative to energy expenditure, 18.3% were classified as inactive (<1.50 kcal.kg-1.day-1 (KKD)), 16.4% as moderately active (1.50 to 2.99 KKD), and 65.3% as active (>or=3.00 KKD). When assessed against the CPAG recommendations, which promote integration of physical activity into one's daily routine, a higher proportion of Manitobans met recommended physical activity levels than that reported in previous surveys, which focused on leisure activity. Given the corresponding increase in levels of obesity and chronic disease, and equivocal nutrient intake data, we recommend that the CPAG recommendations be reviewed, especially with respect to the inclusion of routine baseline activities of daily living.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".