Duration Or Intensity Of Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To distinguish if duration or intensity of Physical Activity (PA) is more associated with physical capacity scores. METHODS: Participants consisted of 40 men and women aged 65 years or older living independently, and considered as inactive. Participants were asked to wear a pedometer (Piezo® SC-StepRX™ System) for a period of seven continuous days and undergo valid physical capacity tests: 6-minute walk, balance on one foot, chair stand test, and the 8ft timed-up and go. PA was evaluate as total time, time spent at least at moderate intensity, and time spent in 10-minute bouts at least at moderate intensity. RESULTS: Twenty-nine women (70.7%) with a median age of 71 ± 5.7 years old and an average BMI of 28.0 ± 4.0 kg/m2 participated in the study. The total PA time was 378 ± 169 in the evaluation week, 55% of those minutes were spent in moderate intensity. Participants performed a median time (25-75th) of 10 minutes (0-50) of at least moderate intensity in bouts of 10 minutes or more. In bivariate analyses, time spent at moderate intensity was significantly associated with all measures of physical capacity (P≤.05), total PA time with three out of five measures, and time in 10-minute bouts at least at moderate intensity was significantly associated with two out of five measures of physical capacity. However, when analyzed in linear regression, only time spent at moderate intensity was a predictor of the results of the physical capacity tests for four out of the five physical capacity tests (R2between .12 and .41; P<0.5) even when adjusted for age, gender and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Intensity of PA, regardless of the bout, seems to be the best indicator of greater physical capacity in older adults. Studies are now needed to verify if increasing PA at moderate intensity will result in an increase in physical capacity for that population.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".