Obese persons’ physical activity experiences and motivations across weight changes: a qualitative exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obese individuals are encouraged to participate in physical activity. However, few qualitative studies have explored obese individuals' motivations for and experiences with physical activity. METHODS: The physical activity experiences of self-identified obese or formerly obese persons (n = 15) were explored through in-depth, semi-structured, audio-taped, repeated interviews and ethnography over one year. Participant observation occurred at multiple sites identified by participants as meaningful to them as obese persons. Data from interview transcripts and fieldnotes were analyzed via thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Underlying goals for engaging in physical activity were diverse. Emergent motivation themes included: protection, pressure, and pleasure. Participants were protective of maintaining functional capacity, establishing fit identities, and achieving weight loss. Participants also discussed feelings of excessive pressure to continue progressing toward weight and fitness goals. Enjoyment in physical activity was often a by-product for all participants and could become a sought-after endpoint. Finding an environment in which participants felt safe, accepted, and encouraged to be active was extremely important for continual engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Obese individuals enjoyed physical activity and were concerned about maintaining functional fitness. Stigmatization and untenable goals and monitoring could disrupt physical activity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".