Canada's Physical activity guide for older adults : effect of an intervention on functional fitness and daily energy expenditure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate whether a behaviour change program based on Canada's Physical Activity Guide for Older Adults would elicit greater benefits than adoption of the Physical Activity Guide alone.Fifteen older adults completed the eight week intervention (Intervention group, mean age:73+5y years), while fourteen others received only the Physical Activity Guide (Comparison group, mean age: 77+10 years).Strength, flexibility, balance (Rikli & Jones, 1999) and estimated energy expenditure (DiPietro et al., 1993) \ilere measured at zero and eight weeks.Strength and balance were significantly greater in the Intervention group at baseline þ< 0.05), and improved in both groups over time (p<0.01).Flexibility also increased significantly in both groups over time (p<0.01).The estimated energy expenditure increased in both groups over time (p<0.05),however the increase \ryas significantly greater in the Intervention group (group*time, p<0.05).Increased estimated total energy expenditure in the Intervention group was due to increases in all sub-components of physical activity over time (exercise, recreational physical activity and work).A significant group*time interaction was also noted for increased energy expenditure due to work activities Cr<0.05).The increase in energy expenditure in the Comparison group was due to increase in exercise and recreational physical activþ only.These results suggest that adoption of the Physical Activity Guide results in benefits.However, the addition of a behaviour change intervention induced a greater increase in estimated energy expenditure primarily through daily work activities, and may therefore ultimately lead to greater health benefits than distribution of the Physical Activity Guide alone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".