Clearing your mind of work-related stress through moderate-to-vigorous and leisure-time physical activity: What "dose" it takes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Work is reported as one of the main sources of psychological stress. Because of its role in the onset of burnout and impact on economic and health systems, work-related stress (WS) has become an issue of much concern. Among modifiable factors capable of reducing WS, two categories of physical activity (PA), namely leisure-time and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (LTPA and MVPA), show promising evidence. Previous findings suggest that LTPA and MVPA allow adults to experience psychological detachment from job demands and restore their depleted resources at work. However, the optimal independent doses of LTPA and MVPA associated with a lower WS level has not yet been established. Methods. The aim of this study was therefore to address this gap using a cross-sectional, nationally representative sample of 4 200 Canadian workers. MVPA was measured through accelerometry and a self-reported assessment was conducted to collect data on WS and LTPA. Results. Generalized additive models indicated that one hour a day on average spent doing a LTPA of 8.5 METs-hour was associated with the highest benefits on WS (p < 0.001, Adjusted R2 = 0.04) while the optimal average daily dose of MVPA was around 90 minutes (p < 0.001, Adjusted R2 = 0.04). Noteworthy, first signs of WS reduction appear long before optimum is reached (e.g. 30 minutes of MVPA), stressing the relevance of merely doing an LTPA/MVPA regardless of the dose. Conclusion. Findings offer practical recommendations for public health policies on the optimal doses of MVPA/LTPA associated with decreased WS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".