Fitness, fatness and self concept in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Among children, both cardiorespiratory fitness and relative weight have been shown to be associated with cognitive function, mental health, and self-concept. However, it is not well understood how different combinations of fitness and fatness are related to these outcomes. Purpose: This study investigates the impact of the Fit-Fat relationship on global self-worth and perceived athletic competence in children. Methods: Participants were 2134 children (50% M), with a mean age of 11.3 (SD=0.4). Participants completed body composition measures, the Leger Shuttle Run Test (VO2max) and the Harter GSW and AC subscales. Fit-fat was defined as VO2max/(waist/height). Four models were defined for each outcome; one for each predictor separately (VO2max, waist:height, fit-fat) and one with all three predictors. In the final model, variables were orthogonalized to measure the contribution of Fit-Fat beyond its constituent measures. Results: Fit-Fat (AŸ= .20, p < .001) and VO2max (AŸ= .19, p < .001) were equivalently associated with self-worth, while VO2max (AŸ = .34, p < .001) was superior to Fit-Fat (AŸ = .26, p < .001) as an indicator of athletic competence. Effects for waist:height were slightly weaker in both cases. For both outcomes, Fit-Fat made a small but significant contribution after effects of VO2max and waist:height were removed (self-worth: AŸ=0.04, p=0.05; competence, AŸ=0.05, p=0.01). Conclusion: While Fit-Fat is a useful indicator of self-worth and athletic competence, it is not superior to its constituent variables. However, it captures variance not accounted for by CRF or body composition measures, and is therefore of independent importance. Word Count: 249/250
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".