MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Can a Sports Team-based Lifestyle Program (Hockey Fans In Training) Improve Weight In Overweight Men?

2016· article· en· W2511080851 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert J. Petrella, Dawn P. Gill, Ashleigh De Cruz, Brendan Riggin, Stephanie Muise, Roseanne Pulford, Cassandra Bartol, Kate Hunt, Sally Wyke, Cindy M. Gray, Christopher Bunn, Shaun Treweek, Merrick Zwarenstein, Guangyong Zou, Karen Danylchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightPhysical therapyMedicineBody mass indexWaistWeight lossRandomized controlled trialStrength trainingClubWeight managementObesityGerontologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of gender is often neglected when planning and implementing chronic disease prevention and management strategies. Football Fans in Training (FFIT) — a gender-sensitized, weight loss and healthy living program for men delivered via professional football clubs — has been shown to be highly effective in helping overweight/obese men lose weight and improve their health risk. PURPOSE: To examine the potential for new male-friendly, physical activity and healthy living program — Hockey Fans in Training (Hockey FIT) — to help overweight/obese men decrease their weight, waist circumference (WC), and body mass index (BMI), after 12 weeks. METHODS: A pilot, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) whereby male fans (35-65 years; BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2) of 2 Junior A hockey clubs (Ontario, Canada) were randomized to either the intervention (Hockey FIT) or comparator (wait-list control). Hockey FIT involved 12 weekly, 90-minute group sessions delivered by trained coaches using club facilities. Each session combined classroom activities, including evidence-based behaviour change techniques (e.g., self-monitoring, goal setting) and healthy eating advice (e.g., reducing portions), with physical activity training. Lifestyle prescriptions, including incremental step count targets, were also prescribed each week. We examined between-group differences in mean weight loss, WC, and BMI using linear mixed effects regression models that accounted for club and age. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups [total N = 80, median (interquartile range) — i) age: 48.0 (17.0) years; ii) weight: 112.2 (23.2) kg; iii) WC: 119.3 (13.5) cm; iv) BMI: 35.1 (6.3) kg/m2]. Of the 40 men in the Hockey FIT group, 30 (75%) attended at least 6 sessions. At 12 weeks, the Hockey FIT group lost more weight than the control group [difference between groups in mean weight change (control is reference): -3.6 (95% confidence interval: -5.2 to -1.9) kg, p<0.001]. The Hockey FIT group also saw greater reductions in WC and BMI, when compared to the control group [difference between groups in mean i) WC: -2.8 (-5.0 to -0.6) cm, p=0.01; ii) BMI: -0.9 (-1.4 to -0.4) kg/m2, p<0.001]. CONCLUSION: Hockey FIT has the potential to help overweight/obese men lose weight and improve health risk. A definite RCT is warranted with long-term follow-up.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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