Fitness centre membership is related to healthy behaviours.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Maximizing the health benefits associated with reducing inactivity levels requires an understanding of the individual and environmental determinants of physical activity. Membership in a fitness facility promotes physical activity, yet little is known of its relationship to health. The purpose of this study was to compare physical activity levels, and health status, behaviours, and beliefs, in members of a fitness centre, and non-member community residents. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, fitness centre members (n=236) and non-members (n=302) were compared with respect to perceived health status, use of health care services, fitness status, physical activity level, perceived control over health, and the likelihood of engaging in health promoting behaviours, using The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile. Questionnaires were mailed to adult members of a fitness centre, and a stratified (age, sex) sample of non-members randomly selected from the local community. RESULTS: Fitness centre members were more likely than the comparison group to have visited a general physician, dentist, athletic therapist, optometrist, or nutritionist during the previous year (p<0.05), to exercise regularly, and to rate their physical fitness as very fit. They scored significantly higher on the overall health promoting lifestyle score (p=0.0353) as well as on health responsibility (p=0.0053), exercise (p=0.0001), and nutrition (p=0.0166) subscales, even after adjusting for differences in activity levels between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fitness centre membership is associated with increased health responsibility and health promoting behaviours. This finding appears to be related to membership in the fitness centre, and not to increased participation in physical activity.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".