Time trends of resistance training practice in Brazilian adults from 2006 to 2018: An ecological time-series study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular physical exercise is mandatory for health, regardless of the modality. However, it is recommended to include resistance exercises in addition to aerobic exercises. The study aimed to verify the time trends of the resistance training practice in a representative sample of Brazilian adults from 2006 to 2018. The ecological time-series study used the secondary data obtained from the Risk Factors Surveillance System for Chronic Non-communicable Diseases (VIGITEL) of the Brazilian Ministry of Health. The search resulted in a representative sample of 677,819 Brazilian adults from 18 to 120 years old. The resistance training practice was self-reported. Analyses were performed in the overall sample as well as by age groups. Prais-Winsten regressions were used to analyze the time trends, and the significance level was set at p < 0.05. In the overall sample, there was an annual growth rate (AGR) of 0.47% (95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 0.03; 0.90, p= 0.03) in resistance training practice. For the age groups, we found a significant increase in resistance training practice over time in those aged 35-54 years (AGR = 0.65%; 95% CI = 0.44; 0.86, p= 0.001), 55-64 years (AGR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23; 0.58, p=0.001) and ≥ 65 years (AGR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.07; 0.37, p = 0.007). Based on the results, the resistance training practice increased among Brazilians from 2006 to 2018, particularly among those over 35 years old
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".