Relationship of Functional Fitness With Daily Steps in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking is the main type of physical activity among community-dwelling older adults and it is associated with various health benefits. However, there is limited evidence about the relationship between functional fitness and walking performed under independent living conditions among older adults. PURPOSE: This study examined the relationship between functional fitness and steps walked per day among older adults, both assessed objectively, with performance-based measures accounting for the effect of age, gender, and chronic conditions. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 60 participants aged 65 years or older (mean = 76.9 ± 7.3 years, range 65-92 years) wore pedometers for 3 consecutive days. Functional fitness was measured using the Functional Fitness Test (lower and upper body strength, endurance, lower and upper body flexibility, agility/balance). The outcome measure was the mean number of steps walked for 3 days with participants classified into tertiles: low walkers (<3000 steps), medium walkers (≥3000 < 6500 steps), and high walkers (≥6500 steps). RESULTS: After controlling for age, gender, and the number of chronic conditions, none of the functional fitness parameters was significantly associated with steps taken per day when comparing medium walkers with low walkers. In contrast, all functional fitness parameters, except upper body flexibility, were significantly associated with steps taken per day when comparing high walkers with low walkers. CONCLUSION: In this sample of older adults, greater functional fitness was associated only with relatively high levels of walking involving 6500 steps per day or more. It was not related to medium walking levels. The findings point to the importance of interventions to maintain or enhance functional fitness among older adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".