Are international guidelines for physical activity sufficient to improve health status?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSES 1) To determine whether international physical activity guidelines are adequate to change health status in inactive adults. 2) To examine directly the dose‐response relationship between exercise volume and indicators of health status. METHOD Participants (N=65; age=44±12 yr) were assigned randomly to one of five 13 week exercise training programs: 1) 10 min brisk walking 1x/week (n=11), 2) 10 min brisk walking 3x/week (n=10), 3) 30 min brisk walking 3x/week (n=16), 4) 60 min brisk walking 3x/week (n=11), and 5) 30 min running 3x/week (n=17). Health indicators were recorded before and after training including anthropometry, fasting glucose, total cholesterol (TC), high density lipoproteins (HDL) and blood pressure. RESULTS One 10 min weekly bout of exercise was sufficient to cause significant changes in select measures of health status. There were similar changes in fasting glucose, TC/HDL ratio, and diastolic blood pressure to that seen with higher volumes of activity. However, higher volumes of exercise (30 min or more of brisk walking per week) were required to change body mass significantly. CONCLUSIONS Exercise volumes as low as 10 min of brisk walking per week can lead to improved indicators of health status. However, higher volumes of exercise appear to lead to additional health benefits. Research Support Source: Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, CIHR, NSERC Canada.
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 | 0.023 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".