Targeting Abdominal Adiposity and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in the Workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prevalence of numerous chronic metabolic diseases is increasing worldwide with considerable personal and societal consequences. The aim of our study was to test the hypothesis that assessment of waist circumference (WC) and of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) could be relevant clinical targets of a simple preventive approach designed to improve cardiometabolic risk (CMR) profile at the workplace. METHODS: A total of 787 employees participated in a pilot project of the "Grand Défi Entreprise." This challenge involved a 3-month in-house competition to favor peer support in the adoption of healthier lifestyle habits. For that purpose, the participating companies offered a comprehensive cardiometabolic/cardiorespiratory health assessment performed at the workplace with a mobile risk assessment unit before and after the contest (nutrition/physical activity (PA) questionnaires, resting blood pressure (BP), anthropometric measurements, lipid profile, and submaximal treadmill test). RESULTS: At baseline, more than 43% of workers were considered sedentary or moderately inactive (<3.5 h·wk of physical activity). Furthermore, the proportion of subjects in the high-risk category of nutritional quality index (NQI) was high (49%). After 3 mo, NQI and PA level improved. Reductions in WC (-4.2 ± 4.0 cm, P < 0.0001), in heart rate at a standardized submaximal workload (-4 ± 10 bpm, P < 0.0001) as well as in resting systolic (-6 ± 11 mm Hg) and diastolic (-4 ± 7 mm Hg) blood pressure were also observed. Improvements in WC and CRF were associated with improvements in the CMR profile. CONCLUSION: Results of this study show the added value of measuring/targeting WC and CRF as a relevant approach to reduce CMR at the workplace. Results also suggest that putting in place a permissive "in-house ecosystem" within the company is relevant to promote the adoption of healthier lifestyle habits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".