Differences in functional fitness and adherence between Chinese and non-Chinese older adults participating in a Tai Chi intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of the current study was to examine adherence levels and changes in functional fitness among older Canadian adults of Chinese and non-Chinese origin living in areas of low socioeconomic status in response to a free tai chi program. Study Design: This was a 16-week Tai Chi intervention study. Functional fitness (strength, endurance, and flexibility) data was collected pre- and post-intervention for Chinese participants and non-Chinese participants. Yang-style Tai Chi was taught and participants were advised to attend two, one-hour sessions per week. Results: Non-Chinese participants had significant improvements in strength and flexibility as measured by combined handgrip and sit-and-reach tests. This was not observed in the Chinese group. Multivariate regression analysis showed that Chinese participants had greater improvements over non-Chinese participants in functional fitness measures of endurance (arm curls, chair stands and up-and-go tests). No significant differences in strength and flexibility tests were observed between Chinese and non-Chinese participants. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in the overall average weekly attendance for the Chinese versus non-Chinese group (1.1±1.2 classes and 1.0±0.8 classes respectively). Conclusion: Overall, 16-weeks of Tai Chi led to significant improvements in functional fitness in both groups. Chinese participants had greater improvements in muscular endurance compared to non-Chinese participants despite similar attendance in both groups. Given the affordability, adherence levels and observed health benefits, it seems that Tai Chi is an optimal mode of physical activity for culturally diverse older adults.Acknowledgments: Project was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Sport Participation Research Initiative
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".