MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Personalized Walking Cadence to Increase Time at Moderate-Vigorous Intensity in Inactive Older Adults

2016· article· en· W2462860940 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Sénéchal, Jana Slaght, Danielle R. B̀ouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedometerCadenceMedicinePercentileIntensity (physics)Physical therapyExercise intensityPhysical activityInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationHeart rateMathematicsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The main goal of this study was to identify if older inactive adults using a pedometer, giving walking cadence required to reach moderate intensity, significantly increased total time spent at moderate to vigorous intensity and 10-minute bouts at moderate to vigorous intensity. METHODS: Inactive older adults (N = 42) were instructed to walk 150 minutes/week at no specified intensity during phase 1 (week 1-6). In phase 2 (week 7-12), the intervention group (N = 20) received instructions on how to reach moderate intensity, using a pedometer and individualized walking cadence, while the control group (N = 22) did not. The individualized cadence was based on the number of steps per minute required to reach 40% of VO2peak. RESULTS: During phase 1, total time spent at moderate to vigorous intensity increased from 100 ± 6 to 117 ± 64 min. (p≤ 0.05) and time spent in moderate to vigorous intensity in 10-minute bouts significantly increased from 10 (25th-75th percentile: 0-32 min.) to 19 (25th-75th percentile: 8-53 min.; p≤ 0.01). During phase 2, total time spent at moderate to vigorous intensity increased from 129 ± 67 to 203 ± 91min. (p≤ 0.01) and time spent at moderate to vigorous intensity in 10-minute bouts increased from 31(25th-75th percentile:11-55) to 88 (25th-75th percentile: 52-143); p≤ 0.01, while the control group significantly decreased both variables (p≤ 0.01). In addition, 35% of inactive older adults in the intervention group reached the common prescription of a minimum of 150 minutes of aerobic exercise per week in 10-minute bouts (p≤ 0.01). No one in the control group reached 150 minutes of aerobic exercise per week in 10-minute bouts. CONCLUSION: Inactive older adults can increase total time and 10-minute bouts at moderate to vigorous intensity by using individualized walking cadence. These results are of great importance as it suggests that walking cadence might be a useful strategy to promote exercise at the target intensity recommended for 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→