Do "Young-Oldâ Exercisers Feel Better Than Sedentary Persons? A Cohort Study in Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a "successful aging” perspective, the subjective feeling of well-being is as important as "objective” health. Physical exercise is seen as being an effective way of staying healthy, but its link with well-being in a normal aging population remains largely unexplored. Based on two randomized surveys of the aging population, conducted in 1979 and 1994, respectively, with questionnaires including retrospective questions on activities and health, two cohorts of young-old (aged 64-74) were selected (cohort 1, born 1905-1914, N = 949; cohort 2, born 1920-1929, N = 602) and split into four groups, corresponding to their exercising trajectories (long-term exercisers LE, new exercisers NE, quitters Q, sedentary S). The link between the four trajectories and two indicators of well-being (self-rated health, self-assessed depression scale) was examined by means of regression analyses. In both cohorts, the LE group had a higher level of well-being than the Q and the S. The study also throws light on the case of the quitters (Q), who showed the lowest level of well-being. Scant research has hitherto been done on the causes and repercussions of abandoning exercise
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".