Title: Effects of 24 hours of exercise withdrawal on mood states of individuals high and low on exercise dependence
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00100837/00001
 Material Information
Title: Effects of 24 hours of exercise withdrawal on mood states of individuals high and low on exercise dependence
Alternate Title: Effects of twenty-four hours of exercise withdrawal on mood states of individuals high and low on exercise dependence
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Hagan, Amy Lynn
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date: 2001
Copyright Date: 2001
 Subjects
Subject: Exercise and Sport Sciences thesis, M.S.E.S.S   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Exercise and Sport Sciences -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Summary: ABSTRACT: It has been reported that individuals who are dependent on exercise experience deprivation sensations when exercise is interrupted. The purposes of this study were to determine the following: --Do exercise-dependent individuals experience mood alterations after 24 hours of exercise deprivation? --Do motives and reasons to exercise differ between individuals high and low on exercise-dependence symptoms? --Do physiological differences such as body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness vary between the high and low exercise-dependent groups? Forty-one undergraduate females, (i.e., 20 low and 21 high exercise-dependence individuals) completed mood measures pre and post exercise and pre and post quiet rest using a repeated measures design. Results showed no mood differences between the high and low exercise-dependent groups after the 24 hours of exercise deprivation. Significant group differences on reasons and motives to exercise were found, with the high group displaying more internal and external motivation and exercising for mood, weight control, attractiveness, enjoyment, and tone more than the low exercise-dependent group. Finally, the high exercise-dependent group had a lower body composition and a higher level of cardiorespiratory fitness compared to the low exercise-dependent group. Implications of results are discussed in addition to future research directions.
Summary: KEYWORDS: exercise dependent, mood states, withdrawal
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.E.S.S.)--University of Florida, 2001.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 98-106).
System Details: System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details: Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility: by Amy Lynn Hagan.
General Note: Title from first page of PDF file.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains ix, 107 p.; also contains graphics.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00100837
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 49231759
alephbibnum - 002765974
notis - ANP4013

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

master ( PDF )


Full Text











EFFECTS OF 24 HOURS OF EXERCISE WITHDRAWAL ON
MOOD STATES OF INDIVIDUALS HIGH AND LOW ON
EXERCISE DEPENDENCE

















By

AMY LYNN HAGAN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN EXERCISE AND SPORT SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2001




























Copyright 2001

by

Amy L. Hagan




















This thesis is dedicated to all those few individuals who believed in my ability
and perseverance when so many people questioned me. Specifically, this thesis is
dedicated to my mom and dad who always listened to my struggles, provided support,
and gave an encouraging word even when they were not sure of what I was doing.
Additionally, this thesis would have never been accomplished without the support from
Sarah Drew and Sue Craven; both of them changed my life forever and helped me
discover the freedom that is available to me. I thank them for always believing in me.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis could have never been completed without the help and guidance of

numerous individuals. I would like to thank Dr. Heather Hausenblas for her knowledge

and guidance in implementing and writing this thesis. She has been so much more than

an advisor-a mentor would be more appropriate. I would also like to thank my other

committee members-Dr. Chris Janelle and Dr. Dan Connaughton-for their feedback and

guidance during this process. The insightful discussions with Danielle Symons Downs

and Aaron Duley also contributed to a more thorough understanding of exercise

dependence and deprivation. Additionally, I would like to thank Living Well and Timm

Lovins for the use of their facility while testing.

Many individuals helped me with the testing procedures and I am grateful.

However, a special acknowledgement is needed for Kathleen Kehrer and MacKenzie

Eugene who assisted in most of the testing.

I would not have stayed sane during the process of writing my thesis if not for the

encouragement, support, and laughter from my officemate, Beth Fallon. We shared many

experiences and I will forever treasure our friendship and good times. Stress-relieving

moments such as "lights out" made the hard times more comfortable. She shared past

and current research and thesis-writing experiences ; and allowed me to use them as a

guide. This was indispensable.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W LE D G M EN T S ............................... ......... ................................................... iv

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............. ................

E explanations for D dependence ......................................................................................... 2
Psychological Explanations ............................................... ............................. 2
P erson ality traits.......................................... .......................... 2
A effective states ......................................... 7
Physiological Explanations .................................................................................. 8
Beta-endorphin theory of endogenous opioids ................................................. 9
Sym pathetic arousal hypothesis.................................................. ... ................. 10
Psychobiological Explanations ........................................... .......................... 12
S u m m a ry ................... ................................................................ 1 7
D efining Exercise D ependence .................................................... ......... .............. 17
Review of Exercise Deprivation or Withdrawal Literature ........................................ 21
Experimental Studies ............................................. ............ .. 21
Quasi-Experim ental Studies..................................................... ......................... 23
Prospective Studies ............................................... ........ ............ .. 26
C orrelational Studies................... .......... .... .............. ........................ ................ .. 27
G general Sum m ary .... ........................ ........ .............................. .............. 28
Prior R research Lim itations.................................... ....... .................. .............. 29
P u rp o se ............ ..... ............................ .. ........................................... 3 1
Significance of the Study ............................................. ....................... .............. 32
H y p o th e sis.............................................................................................. ............... ..... 3 2

2 M E T H O D ..............................................................................3 5

P articip ants ....................................................................................... ............... 3 5
In stru m e n ts ......... ....................... ................................................................... 3 5
Procedure....................................... 42
D ro p -O u ts ................................ ................................................................... 4 6
D ata A n a ly sis ......... ....................... ................................................................. 4 7
Hypothesis 1 ......................................................... 47
Hypothesis 2................................................................ 48
H hypothesis 3................................ ............... ..... 48



v









Assumptions For Statistical Analyses..... .................... .............. 48

3 R E S U L T S .................................................................. 5 1

M manipulation C heck.. ................. ............... ................ .. ............... ........ ................... 5 1
R liability of M measures ................................ ........ ...... ............ .......... .. 51
M missing D ata ........................................................... ........ ...... 54
Prim ary H ypothesis.................................. ................ .. ........... ....... .. .......... .. 54
Secondary H ypothesis.............................. .............. .......................... .................. 58
Third Hypothesis........................................ .............. 61

4 DISCUSSION ............. .. ........................................... 64

F first P u rp o se ........................................................... ........ ...... 6 5
Second Purpose ............................................. .................... ..... 67
Third Purpose ......... ..... ...... ... ....................... 69
L im itatio n s .............................................................................. 7 0
Theoretical Implications ............... ........................... 72
Future D directions and Conclusions ........................................ ..... .............. 73

APPENDICES

A IR B A P P R O V A L .................................................................................. ..75

B DRIVE FOR THINNESS SUBSCALE .......................................................... 76

C EXERCISE DEPENDEN CE SCALE ......................................................................77

D EXERCISE MOTIVATION SCALE....................................................................79

E REASONS FOR EXERCISE INVENTORY ................................ .....................82

F LEISURE-TIME ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................................83

G EXERCISE-INDUCED FEELING INVENTORY (EFI) .......................................84

H PR OFILE OF M O OD STA TES .................................................... .....................85

I F E E L IN G S C A L E .......................................................................... ....................87

J STATE-TRAIT ANXIETY INVENTORY.................................... .....................88

K POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE ............................................89

L RATING OF PERCEIVED EXERTION ...................................... ............... 90

M BRUCE PROTOCOL TEST REPORT ....................................... ............... 91

N PRE PARTICIPATION QUESTIONNAIRE .................................. ...............93









O 24-H O U R H IST O R Y ........................................................................ ..................94

P C O N SE N T F O R M ......... ...... ........... ................. ........................... .....................95

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S .......................................................................... ....................98

B IO G R A PH ICA L SK ETCH ......... ................. ..........................................................107















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Exercise and Sport Sciences

EFFECTS OF 24 HOURS OF EXERCISE WITHDRAWAL ON
MOOD STATES OF INDIVIDUALS HIGH AND LOW ON
EXERCISE DEPENDENCE

By

Amy Lynn Hagan

August 2001

Chairman: Dr. Heather Hausenblas
Major Department: Exercise and Sport Sciences

It has been reported that individuals who are dependent on exercise experience

deprivation sensations when exercise is interrupted. The purposes of this study were to

determine the following:

* Do exercise-dependent individuals experience mood alterations after 24 hours of
exercise deprivation?
* Do motives and reasons to exercise differ between individuals high and low on
exercise-dependence symptoms?
* Do physiological differences such as body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness
vary between the high and low exercise-dependent groups?

Forty-one undergraduate females, (i.e., 20 low and 21 high exercise-dependence

individuals) completed mood measures pre and post exercise and pre and post quiet rest

using a repeated measures design. Results showed no mood differences between the high

and low exercise-dependent groups after the 24 hours of exercise deprivation. Significant

group differences on reasons and motives to exercise were found, with the high group

displaying more internal and external motivation and exercising for mood, weight









control, attractiveness, enjoyment, and tone more than the low exercise-dependent group.

Finally, the high exercise-dependent group had a lower body composition and a higher

level of cardiorespiratory fitness compared to the low exercise-dependent group.

Implications of results are discussed in addition to future research directions.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Researchers have consistently found that physical activity results in the

improvement of both psychological and physiological health (United States Department

of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 1996, 2000). Because of the numerous

benefits associated with exercise and the high prevalence of sedentariness in North

America, there is concern by health care professionals and government agencies on how

to increase an individual's activity level (Dishman, 1994; USDHHS, 2000). Facilitating

physical activity adoption and adherence, however, continues to remain a challenge given

that approximately 40% of American adults are sedentary (USDHHS, 2000), and that

50% of sedentary adults beginning an exercise program drop out within six months

(Dishman, 1994).

At the other extreme of the physical activity continuum are individuals who

exercise excessively. Paradoxically, their extreme exercise behavior may result in

negative psychological and physical consequences. This excessive behavior is termed

exercise dependence and it is gaining attention by researchers (Hausenblas & Symons

Downs, 2001). Consistent with many psychological constructs, exercise dependence

does not have a universal definition (Veale, 1995). It is frequently defined as exercise

that is continued in spite of an injury, placed above all other responsibilities (e.g., job and

family), and withdrawal or deprivation effects are experienced with a decrease or

cessation of exercise (Chan & Grossman, 1988; Szabo, 1995; Veale, 1991).









In this chapter the literature examining exercise dependence and deprivation are

reviewed and the study purposes and hypotheses are explained. Specifically, in the first

section the explanations for the antecedents of exercise dependence are discussed. In the

second section, exercise dependence is defined with a focus on the definitional criterion

of withdrawal. The third section reviews studies that investigated the effects of exercise

deprivation. Finally, in the fourth section, the purposes of the thesis are stated and the

hypotheses are presented.


Explanations for Dependence

There are several processes or explanations for the antecedents of exercise

dependence. Research support for these explanations however, is limited. Explanations

can be classified into psychological, physiological, and psychobiological domains.

Research that examined each of these domains is described below.

Psychological Explanations

Personality traits

The personality trait explanation is based on the belief that pathological

personality characteristics such as obsessive-compulsiveness and narcissism are

associated with exercise-dependent individuals. For example, Davis, Brewer, and

Ratusny (1993) examined relationships among the personality characteristics of

addiction, obsessive-compulsiveness, and exercise dependence with exercise behavior.

They hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship among the aforementioned

personality characteristics and exercise behavior. One hundred and eighty-five male and

female physically active participants (M age = 27.82 years) were recruited through ads

and fliers in local fitness clubs and newsletters. Participants completed the Commitment









to Exercise Scale (Davis et al., 1993), the Addiction Scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991),

the Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Scale (Lazare, Klerman, & Armour, 1966), and

the Drive for Thinness, Body Dissatisfaction, and Bulimia Subscales of the Eating

Disorder Inventory (Garner, Olmsted, & Polivy, 1983). Participants were also

interviewed about their exercise participation over the past 12 months.

Consistent with their predication, Davis and her colleagues (1993) found that, for

males only, obsessive-compulsive personality characteristics were positively related to

exercise frequency. In contrast to their hypothesis, exercise frequency was negatively

related to addictiveness in males. Also, frequency of exercise was negatively related to

addictiveness in females, although nonsignificant (p = .07). No other study findings were

significant. Thus, the hypothesized positive relationships among obsessive-

compulsiveness, addictiveness, exercise dependence, and exercise behavior were not

supported.

In a similar study Yates and her colleagues (1992) examined the personality

characteristics between obligatory and nonobligatory male and female runners who ran a

minimum of 15 miles per week. According to their responses on an 18-item author-

developed questionnaire and a semi-structured interview that assessed extreme exercise

attitudes and behaviors, the runners were classified as either obligatory or nonobligatory

exercisers. Ten male and 17 female participants were classified as obligatory runners,

while the nonobligatory group comprised 20 males and 19 females. Participants

completed the Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1981), the

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991), the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Dahlstrom & Welch, 1960), the Bem Sex Role









Inventory (Bem, 1981), the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966), the

Eating Attitudes Test (Garner & Garfinkel, 1979), and the Beck Depression Inventory

(Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, Erbaugh, 1961).

The researchers found that the obligatory runners were more likely to follow a

diet, be preoccupied with their body, run alone, and report more positive changes in self-

concept and control over their lives since beginning to run than the nonobligatory

runners. Also, the obligatory males were twice as likely to have elevated scores on the

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory compared to the nonobligatory male

runners. No other group differences were found between the obligatory and

nonobligatory male and female runners.

In a controversial study, Yates and her colleagues (1983) argued that male

obligatory runners resembled anorexia nervosa patients on certain personality

characteristics (e.g., introversion, inhibition of anger, high expectations, depression, and

excessive use of denial) and labeled this relationship as the anorexia-analogue hypothesis.

To test their hypothesis they examined the personality characteristics of 60 male

excessive exercisers and compared their responses to traditionally reported idiosyncrasies

of anorexia nervosa patients. Although no objective data were reported, Yates et al.

claimed that running and extreme dieting were both dangerous attempts to establish an

identity; that is, to be recognized as either exercise-dependent or anorexic.

Their article was heavily criticized as having no pertinent data, poor

methodology, no relevance to the majority of runners, an over-reliance on extreme

individuals, and an overstatement of similarities between the groups (Blumenthal,

O'Toole, & Chang, 1984). Succeeding empirical research has failed to find a common









psychopathology between exercise-dependents and eating-disorder patients (e.g.,

Blumenthal et al., 1984; Coen & Ogles, 1993). In short, the anorexia analogue hypothesis

is only speculative and has not been fully supported by subsequent research (Coen &

Ogles, 1993).

For example, Coen and Ogles (1993) examined the personality characteristics

believed to be common to anorexics and runners according to the anorexia analogue

hypothesis (e.g., anxiety, perfectionism, and ego identity). The participants were 142

male marathon runners who completed the Obligatory Exercise Questionnaire

(Thompson & Pasman, 1991), the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Marten,

Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), the Trait Subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

(Speilberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), the Ego Identity Scale (Tan,

Kendis, Fine, & Porac, 1977), and demographic running characteristics. A median split

on the Obligatory Exercise Questionnaire was used to classify runners as either

obligatory or nonobligatory.

It was found that the obligatory runners reported more perfectionistic

characteristics compared to the nonobligatory runners. Specifically, obligatory runners

were more concerned about making a mistake, had higher personal standards, more

doubts about their actions, and had a higher need for organization than their

nonobligatory counterparts. The obligatory runners also reported greater trait anxiety

compared to the nonobligatory runners. The authors concluded that the anorexia

analogue hypothesis was partially supported because only some of the personality

characteristics advanced by Yates et al. (1983) were associated with the obligatory

runners.









In contrast to the previous study, lannos and Tiggemann (1997) failed to find

personality differences between exercise-dependent and nondependent individuals. They

examined 205 male and female individuals from local gymnasiums. The participants

were divided into three groups according to the number of hours they exercised per week:

light (n = 69, 0-5 hours), medium (n = 107, 5-11 hours), and excessive (n = 29, 11+

hours). The participants completed an author-developed questionnaire which assessed

their level of exercise dependence, the Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), the

Internality Subscale of the Locus of Control Inventory (Levenson, 1981), the Obsessive-

Compulsive Scale (Gibb, Bailey, Best, & Lambrinth, 1983), and the Drive for Thinness

and Bulimia Subscales of the Eating Disorder Inventory. It was found that the excessive

exercisers reported more eating disorder behaviors than the light and medium exercisers,

with females scoring higher than males. Despite this relationship, no significant

differences were found between exercise level and the personality characteristics of self-

esteem, locus of control, and obsessive-compulsiveness. Thus, the authors concluded

that excessive exercise is not related to a pathological personality.

Finally, Estok and Rudy (1986) examined 57 marathon and 38 nonmarathon

female runners (M age = 35.8 years) on physical symptoms (e.g., shin splints and knee or

hip pain), psychosocial symptoms (e.g., anxiety and self-esteem), and addictive behaviors

using a 14-item author-developed scale. It was found that the marathon runners

compared to the nonmarathon runners scored significantly higher on addictive behaviors.

The incidence of injuries among marathon runners was significantly higher than in the

nonmarathon runners. Although there was no difference between the marathon and

nonmarathon groups for psychosocial symptoms, there was a negative association









between addiction and self-esteem. The authors concluded that common running injuries

are more a function of the distance run rather than the level of running addiction.

Affective states

The affective-states explanation is based on the belief that the improved feeling

states associated with acute exercise bouts may result in exercise dependence. The

rationale for the affective states hypothesis is that acute exercise results in improvements

in levels of depression, anxiety, stress, and mood (Landers & Arent, 2001). It is therefore

suggested that exercise-dependent individuals become "dependent" on these positive

states and the "euphoria" experienced by exercising.

In accordance with this statement, Sachs and Pargman (1979) suggest that

following acute exercise bouts, feelings of relaxation, accomplishment, vigor, and

calmness are achieved. They also state that, "the feeling of well being associated with

exercising is a strong motivator for continued participation in regular physical activity"

(Sachs & Pargman, 1979, p. 145). The belief is that if small doses of exercise produce

positive feeling states, then increased activity would result in more positive mood. For

example, Morgan (1979) states that, "a drug dosage must be increased across time to

create the same quality of sensation, and similarly, exercise duration or intensity (dosage)

must also be increased to maintain an exercise high" (p. 63). These sensations are the

psychological "euphoria" that individuals feel while exercising. It is suggested that this

euphoria can lead to dependence because individuals will exercise at either higher

intensities or longer durations to experience the positive effects (Kagan & Squires, 1985;

Pierce, 1994; Thompson & Blanton, 1987).

The affective-states explanation for exercise dependence resembles tolerance,

which is a component of dependence as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-









IV (DSM-IV; American Psychological Association [APA], 1994). According to the

DSM-IV definition for dependence, tolerance is achieved when there is a "need for

greatly increased amounts of the substance to achieve the desired effect or a markedly

diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance" (p. 176).

When individuals experience tolerance they have adapted to and become familiar with

the stimuli or stressor regardless of its negative effects. In regards to exercise, tolerance

can develop despite experiencing negative effects such as sore muscles, achy joints, and

the requirement of time.

Davis (1999) describes the adaptation to tolerance as following:

It has been said that a metaphoric switch seems to be thrown as a result of
prolonged exposure to any reinforcing activity or substance, with the
result that a behavior that was once voluntary becomes compulsive and
moves into the state of addiction. (p. 222)

Research is needed to examine whether tolerance to exercise occurs for exercise-

dependent individuals.

Physiological Explanations

Physiological explanations center on the premise that chemical processes that

occur in the body during exercise can lead to dependence. These chemicals include

epinephrine, norepinephrine, beta-endorphins, and opioids. Gauvin and Rejeski (1993)

state that changes occur in the metabolic and nervous systems to promote a physiological

desire for exercise. For example, feelings following an acute exercise bout (e.g.,

refreshed, tranquil) are possibly due to the changing chemical processes in the body

(Gauvin & Rejeski, 1993). Furthermore, Scully et al. (1998) state that "mood enhancing

and analgesic properties associated with exercise are influenced by chemicals in the brain









that are akin to opiates" (p. 416). The two existing physiological explanations are

described in the subsequent sections.

Beta-endorphin theory of endogenous opioids

The most common physiological explanations for exercise dependence is the beta-

endorphin theory of endogenous opioids (De Coverley Veale, 1987; Thoren, Floras,

Hoffman, & Seals, 1990). Beta-endorphins are endogenous compounds that play a role

in the transmission of pain impulses by decreasing pain sensitivity. Researchers have

shown that beta-endorphin levels in the blood rise with submaximal exercise due to an

increased need for blood to be transported to the working muscles (Crossman, Jamieson

& Henderson, 1987; Thoren et al., 1990). Based on the physiological processes that

occur in the body when beta-endorphin levels rise, an individual could conceivably

become dependent on these natural chemicals because they mask pain, thereby allowing

individuals to feel better (Crossman et al., 1987). In addition to the analgesic effect,

endogenous compounds can produce addictive behavioral tendencies such as compulsive

exercise (Pierce, Eastman, Tripathi, Olson, & Dewey, 1993). The opioid peptides

produced by the central nervous system however, are impermeable to the blood brain

barrier. Because of the impermeability to the barrier, beta-endorphins cannot solely be

associated with exercise dependence.

The only located study examining the beta-endorphin hypothesis was undertaken

by Pierce and his colleagues (1993). They examined the relationship between beta-

endorphin levels after an acute exercise bout with exercise-dependence scores.

Participants were eight females who engaged in at least three aerobic classes per week.

The Negative Addiction Scale (Hailey & Bailey, 1982) was completed by the participants

and blood samples were taken by venipuncture before they engaged in a high-intensity









aerobic session for 45 minutes. Immediately following the aerobic session blood samples

were reassessed. Although beta-endorphin levels were elevated after the activity bout, a

significant positive correlation between level of exercise dependence and beta-endorphins

failed to appear. In short, despite the intuitive appeal of this hypothesis, research support

is lacking.

Sympathetic arousal hypothesis

Thompson and Blanton (1987) suggest a sympathetic arousal hypothesis to

explain exercise dependence (Figure 1.1). In this hypothesis, dependence is attributed to

exercise behavior and hormonal changes in epinephrine and norepinephrine. Epinephrine

(e.g., adrenaline) and norepinephrine (e.g., noradrenaline) respond to strong emotional

stimuli and prepare the body for challenges from the environment (Powers & Howley,

1997). When the body is repeatedly stressed in the same manner it becomes familiar with





Exercise training





Increased exercise
performance
Increased efficiency







Lowered sympathetic arousal

Figure 1.1 Process of exercise dependence according to the sympathetic arousal
hypothesis









the stressor, thereby becoming more efficient when responding to the stressor. Energy

efficiency is increased causing a change in the dose response, thereby requiring the

individual to exercise more to achieve the same arousal level.

The sympathetic arousal hypothesis is based on two components: physiological

arousal and the opponent process model. The sympathetic arousal component has been

supported with research on depression and the biochemical and psychological effects of

exercise (Doyne, Chambless, & Beutler, 1983; Landers & Arent, 2001; Mandenoff,

Fumeron, Apfelbaum, & Margules, 1982; Morgan, 1985; Morgan, Roberts, Brand, &

Feinerman, 1970). For example, research has found that for depressed individuals,

exercise and drug therapy have similar antidepressant effects due to elevation of

norepinephrine to a healthy level (Morgan, 1985). Furthermore, individuals who were

sedentary prior to experiencing depressive symptoms may alleviate depression by regular

exercise (Doyne et al., 1983; Mandenoff et al., 1982).

The second element of this hypothesis stems from the opponent-process model of

addiction (Solomon, 1980). This model has three phases: 1) affective hedonic contrast,

2) tolerance, and 3) withdrawal. In the first phase, individuals may experience an

affective feeling of pleasure when exercise is performed. Tolerance, the second phase,

then occurs with repetition of the exercise. This causes an increased need for either

higher intensities or longer durations of exercise to experience the same amount of

pleasure or euphoria previously encountered. The last phase, withdrawal, occurs when

the activity is terminated or the effort (i.e., intensity) by the individual does not elicit the

pleasurable euphoria once felt. Withdrawal then produces an aversive reaction that

promotes subsequent exercise in order to diminish the negative effects. No known









studies have examined the existence of the sympathetic arousal hypothesis in explaining

exercise dependence possibly due to its complexity.

Psychobiological Explanations

A combination of the psychological and physiological domains is referred to as

psychobiological. Sachs and Pargman (1979) report that, based on their interviews with

12 male runners, the vital factors in exercise dependence are a combination of the

psychological and physiological elements of withdrawal. Subsequently, they developed a

two-factor psychobiological model to describe the relationship between running and

dependence. The model is based on the degree of commitment and the amount of

dependence an individual has acquired (Conboy, 1994; Sachs & Pargman, 1984). The

first factor, dependence, is the psychobiologic phenomenon. Commitment, the second

factor, is regarded as the cognitive or intellectual phenomenon (Figure 1.2). The model's

premise is that the addicted runner has high commitment and dependence and when






Dependence


low high


hih Most amount of
high
change from
run/no run

Commitment
low Least amount of
change from
run/no run

Figure 1.2 Sachs and Pargman's (1984) hypothesized model of runners'
motivation









running deprivation occurs, he or she experiences withdrawal effects. In contrast, a

runner with low commitment and high dependence would not experience withdrawal

effects for a missed run. Research examining this model however, has not consistently

supported the existence of the two factors (Conboy, 1994).

For example, Szabo and his colleagues (1997) attempted to test the model by

examining the relationships among addiction, commitment, and deprivation. Committed

runners were defined as those who run for extrinsic rewards, view running as an

important, but not central, part of their lives, and do not suffer from strong withdrawal

symptoms. In comparison, addicted runners were defined as people who are more likely

to run for intrinsic rewards, view running as the central part of their lives, and experience

strong deprivation sensations when unable to exercise. The authors hypothesized that

deprivation effects from running are related to addiction rather than commitment. That

is, addicted but not committed runners would report withdrawal effects during no run

periods. It was also hypothesized that Type I runners (i.e., the most committed runners)

would have higher mileage per week than Type II runners (i.e., committed runners who

involve themselves in other activities).

To test their hypotheses, Szabo and his colleagues (1997) recruited 100 male and

female participants via an Internet discussion group for runners. The participants

completed the Commitment to Running Scale, the Obligatory Exercise Questionnaire, an

author-developed scale to examine deprivation sensations, running demographics, and

reasons for beginning and maintaining running. The authors found a positive relationship

between running addiction and deprivation sensations, as well as the frequency, duration,

and distance of the run. In addition, participants who started running for reasons other









than health, but continued for health reasons, experienced the most extreme feelings of

deprivation. In comparison, commitment to running was not correlated with the variables

examined. In summary, the study results demonstrated that feelings of deprivation are

components of addiction, not commitment, to running.

Another psychobiological explanation is the general theory of addiction (Jacobs,

1986) which describes the etiology and course of all addictive behaviors. This theory

proposes that there are two predisposing factors which determine if an individual is at-

risk of developing an addiction. The first factor is based on the resting physiological

tension of the body which is between hypo (excessively depressed) and hyper (extreme

excitement). According to this theory for a person to be predisposed to an addictive

behavior his or her resting physiological state must be either chronically hypo or hyper.

The predisposed second factor is psychological in nature and states that certain social and

developmental experiences in childhood (e.g., abandonment, abuse) may result in

addictions. It is proposed that addictive behaviors may allow the individual to escape

from his or her distressing reality and thereby, experience wish-fulfilling fantasies of

being an important person.

Jacobs (1986) proposes that when both of the predisposing factors exist, addictive

behavior can be predicted by charting movement through three sequential stages. The

first is called the Stage of Discovery and occurs when a high level of positive

reinforcement is produced by an experience (which later becomes the addiction).

Because of the reinforcement, the behavior is repeated and the individual continues to

achieve the relief experienced by the first occurrence. The shift from occasional

behaviors to planned, highly motivated, compulsive behaviors (termed overlearning) is









the second stage which is termed Stage of Resistance. This resistance is evident when

outside efforts to discourage the behavior are rejected and the addicted individual

embraces the behavior. Three factors explain the resistance experienced during this time:

1) positive reinforcement from the pleasure experienced from the behavior, 2) extent of

overlearning, and 3) avoidance of the return to the previous resting state. This third factor

is considered to be the key aspect of the general theory of addiction due to the

undesirable resting state.

During the second stage, a reciprocal relationship between positive and negative

reinforcement occurs that prepares the individual to enter the third stage. The final stage,

Exhaustion, is entered when the individual who is emotionally and physically exhausted

experiences a rapid breakdown of the addiction and collapses. At this point, the

individual is most treatable and able to discontinue the addictive behavior. In the general

theory of addiction, the presence of the predisposing conditions and the course of

movement through the three stages is known as the Addictive Personality Syndrome.

Examining the second criterion of the general theory of addiction, Bamber,

Cockerill, and Carroll (2000) tested 291 females recruited from fitness centers and eating

disorder clinics. The Exercise Dependence Questionnaire (Ogden, Veale, & Summers,

1997), the Eating Disorder Examination Self-Report Questionnaire (Fairbum & Beglin,

1994), the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Williams, 1988), the Rosenberg

Self-Esteem Scale, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (Eysenck & Eysenck,

1991), the Body Shape Questionnaire (Cooper, Taylor, Cooper, & Fairburn, 1987), the

Exercise Beliefs Questionnaire (Loumidis & Wells, 1998), and questions assessing

menstrual dysfunction, weight dissatisfaction, weight fluctuation, and physical activity









were administered. Based on responses to the Exercise Dependence Questionnaire and

the Eating Disorder Examination Self-Report Questionnaire, the participants were

divided into one of four groups: (a) exercise-dependent, (b) eating disordered, (c) both

exercise-dependent and eating disordered, or (d) neither exercise-dependent nor eating

disordered (i.e., control group).

Statistical analysis revealed that the exercise-dependent and exercise-

dependent/eating disorder groups experienced a higher percentage of menstrual

amenorrhea and irregular menstrual cycles compared to the eating disorder and control

groups. The exercise-dependent/eating disorder group scored higher on the General

Health Questionnaire compared to the exercise-dependent and control groups, indicating

a lower level of overall health. Additionally, the exercise-dependent and control groups

scored significantly higher on self-esteem compared to the exercise-dependent and

exercise-dependent/eating disorder group. Both the exercise-dependent and exercise-

dependent/eating disorder groups demonstrated significantly more concern with body

shape and weight dissatisfaction than the other groups. For weight fluctuation however,

the exercise-dependent/eating disorder group had the greatest fluctuation compared to the

exercise-dependent and control groups but not the eating disorder group.

According to the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised, no group

differences existed for psychoticism, social desirability, and empathy. The control group

however demonstrated significantly less neuroticism, addictiveness, and impulsiveness

compared to the other three groups. In terms of exercise, the exercise-dependent and

exercise-dependent/eating disorder groups exercised significantly more than the eating

disorder and control groups. In summary, the exercise-dependence individuals failed to









have the psychological morbidity seen in the eating disorder and the exercise-

dependent/eating disorder groups. The authors concluded that exercise dependence, in

the absence of an eating disorder, may be a rare occurrence and not a pathology.

Summary

Equivocal and limited research exists on the hypotheses that have been advanced

to explain exercise dependence. This may, in part, be due to the study designs and

measurements. The psychological explanations of personality traits and affective states

have typically been measured using self-report measures that have inherent biases such as

social desirability and retrospective data collection. The physiological explanations such

as the beta-endorphin theory of endogenous opioids and the sympathetic arousal

hypothesis have been more difficult to examine. This is because physiological tests often

require expensive equipment, trained experts, and are intrusive to the participants. The

psychobiological explanations for dependence, such as the two-factor running model and

the general theory of addiction, are challenging to test because it is difficult to determine

what percentage of dependence can be contributed to psychological versus biological

factors. In short, no single explanation for exercise dependence has been supported. It is

plausible that a combination of psychological and physiological factors contribute to

exercise dependence.


Defining Exercise Dependence

As with other addictions, a standard definition of exercise dependence does not

exist (Johnson, 1994). Definitions of exercise dependence include behavioral factors

(e.g., exercise frequency), psychological factors (e.g., pathological commitment), and

physiological factors (e.g., tolerance). The definition that has gained the most









recognition was proposed by DeCoverley Veale (1987; Veale, 1995) who recommends a

set of standards for diagnosing exercise dependence based on the DSM-IV criteria for

substance dependence, which includes both a biomedical (e.g., tolerance, withdrawal)

and psychosocial perspective (e.g., interference with social and occupational functioning;

APA, 1994).

Expanding on Veale's definition, Hausenblas and Symons Downs (2001)

recommend, based on the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for substance dependence (APA,

1994), that exercise dependence be operationalized as a multidimensional maladaptive

pattern of exercise, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested

by three or more of the following: (1) tolerance: which is defined as either a need for

significantly increased amounts of exercise to achieve the desired effect or diminished

effect with continued use of the same amount of exercise; (2) withdrawal: which is

manifested by either withdrawal symptoms for exercise (e.g., anxiety, fatigue) or the

same (or closely related) amount of exercise is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal

symptoms; (3) intention effects: which represents exercise that is often taken in larger

amounts or over a longer period than was intended; (4) loss of control: which is defined

as a persistent desire or unsuccessful effort to cut down or control exercise; (5) time:

which reflects that a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain exercise

(e.g., vacations are exercise related); (6) conflict: important social, occupational, or

recreational activities are given up or reduced because of exercise; and (7) continuance:

exercise is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or

psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the exercise

(e.g., continued running despite severe shin splints).









Furthermore, it is difficult to determine whether the individual has physiological

dependence (i.e., evidence of tolerance or withdrawal) or no physiological dependence

(i.e., no evidence of tolerance or withdrawal). Future research is required to establish the

utility of this definition and which of the criteria apply to exercise dependence. Table 1-1

adopts the DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence to define exercise dependence.

Focusing on the second criterion of withdrawal, exercise-dependent individuals

should demonstrate withdrawal effects during periods of no physical activity. When

excessive exercisers discontinue exercising for a short period of time, they often

experience depression, fatigue, anxiety, irritability, restlessness, insomnia, frustration,

and guilt (Morgan, 1979; Scully et al., 1998; Szabo, 1995). Szabo (1995) stated that

withdrawal symptoms are the cardinal feature of exercise dependence. Furthermore, he

suggested that additional research is required to study the magnitude of the effects of

exercise deprivation on dependent individuals. In short, it is important to determine

whether withdrawal exists with exercise dependence as it does with other addictions

(APA, 1994).

Finally, it is important to note that DeCoverley Veale (1987; Veale, 1995)

proposed that a diagnostic hierarchy must occur to validly identify exercise dependence.

He argued that the diagnosis of an eating disorder must first be excluded before a

diagnosis of primary exercise dependence can be made. That is, primary exercise

dependence can be differentiated from an eating disorder by clarifying the ultimate

objective of the exerciser. In primary exercise dependence the physical activity is an end

in itself. In contrast, for secondary exercise dependence the compelling motivation for

physical activity is the control and manipulation of body composition.










Table 1-1: Exercise Dependence Criteria

At least three of the following must be present at one time to be considered exercise-

dependent:

1. Tolerance: as defined by either of the following:

a) A need for markedly increased amounts of the exercise to achieve the desired

effect or

b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of exercise.

2. Withdrawal: as manifested by either of the following:

a) Characteristic withdrawal symptoms including general fatigue, anxiety, irritability,

frustration, and guilt or

b) The same (or closely related) exercise is done to relieve or avoid withdrawal

symptoms.

3. Intention effects: the exercise is often performed at higher intensities or over a

longer period than was intended.

4. Loss of control: there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or

control exercise.

5. Time: a great deal of time is spent in preparing to exercise, exercising, or

recovering from its effects.

6. Conflict: important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or

reduced because of exercise.

7. Continuance: exercise is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or

recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or

exacerbated by exercise.









Review of Exercise Deprivation or Withdrawal Literature

Regardless of the reasons for the deprivation period (e.g., injury, lack of time),

exercise-dependent individuals experience withdrawal symptoms. There is growing

evidence (Crossman et al., 1987; Gauvin & Szabo, 1992; Mondin et al., 1996; Sachs &

Pargman, 1979; Szabo, 1995; Thaxton, 1982) that only 24 hours of deprivation is

required to experience withdrawal symptoms; however, deprivation periods can range

from 24 hours (Conboy, 1994) to one month (Baekeland, 1970). Research designs of

exercise-deprivation investigations include experimental (Thaxton, 1982), quasi-

experimental (Baekeland, 1970; Conboy, 1994; Mondin et al., 1996; Morris, Steinberg,

Sykes, & Salmon, 1990; Wittig, McConell, Costill, & Schurr, 1992), correlational (Estok

& Rudy, 1986; Harris, 1981a; Szabo, Frenkl, & Caputo, 1996), and prospective studies

(Gauvin & Szabo, 1992; Szabo, Frenkl, & Caputo, 1997). Experimental studies are rare

in the exercise-deprivation literature. One possible explanation is that experimental

deprivation studies are difficult to conduct because most exercise-dependent individuals

do not voluntarily stop exercising (Szabo, 1998). Thus, to examine the effects of exercise

deprivation, quasi-experimental and correlational studies have been undertaken to a

greater extent than experimental designs. Prospective studies have also been developed

in which mood is assessed during exercise and no-exercise days. These study designs are

described in greater detail in the subsequent sections.

Experimental Studies

Thaxton (1982) examined the effects of 24 hours of exercise deprivation with 33

committed runners (24 males and 9 females). Commitment to running was defined as

those who had been averaging five days a week of running for at least one year.

Participants completed the POMS and a galvanic skin response test. The POMS









measures six mood states: tension, fatigue, vigor, anger, confusion, and depression. The

galvanic skin response test is a physiological measure that assesses skin resistance that is

altered by reactions between the autonomic nervous system and a stimulus. The test was

used to measure withdrawal-related tension that was indicated by a high resistance

reading.

Using the Solomon four-group design and random selection, half of the subjects

refrained from running (no-run group) while the remaining participants ran for 30

minutes (run group) during a 24-hour period. Half of the run and no-run groups were

pretested using the galvanic skin test. The pretest included counting by seven backwards

from a given number for five minutes. A loud motor was added to increase the amount of

stress. The galvanic skin test was simultaneously used during this process to record skin

resistance. The POMS and galvanic skin response test were administered within a few

hours after the 30-minute run or deprivation period, depending on group assignment. It

was found that the running-deprived group reported greater depression and stress

compared to the no-run group.

In another experimental study, Gauvin and Szabo (1992) employed the experience

sampling method. They examined one week of deprivation using various exercise

modes. The participants (N = 21; 67% male) were randomly assigned into either an

experimental (n = 12) or control group (n = 9). The participants were university students

who engaged in at least 3 bouts of exercise a week with a mean of 7.52 hours of exercise

per week for the past 4 months. The control group continued their regular exercise

routine throughout the five-week study. The experimental group was instructed to stop

exercising from Day 15 to 21 (one week) of the study. Each participant was given a









beeper that sounded four times a day for the length of the study. In response to the beep,

the participant completed a well-being questionnaire that assessed mood states and

physical symptoms (e.g., headache, stomach pain, chest pain, coughing, sore throat, and

stiff/sore muscles). It was found that the experimental group reported more physical

symptoms during the deprivation period than the control group. No group differences in

mood states were evidenced.

Quasi-Experimental Studies

Because true experimental deprivation studies are difficult to conduct (Szabo,

1995), there have been a larger number of quasi-experimental studies. Baekeland (1970)

conducted the first quasi-experiment examining the effects of exercise-deprivation on

mood. He encountered great difficulty recruiting habitual exercisers (i.e., individuals

who exercised five to six days a week) who were willing to abstain from exercise for one

month. In fact, the habitual runners refused to participate even when monetary incentives

were provided. The participants he was able to recruit were 14 males who regularly

exercised three to four days per week. During the one-month deprivation period,

participants reported decreased psychological well-being (e.g., increased anxiety,

nocturnal awakening, sexual tension, and anxiety). In short, Baekeland found that: (1)

habitual runners, who ran five to six days a week, refused to interrupt their exercise

program for a one-month period; and (2) regular runners, who ran three to four days a

week, reported withdrawal symptoms during a one-month exercise-deprivation period.

In a more controlled quasi-experimental study, Morris and colleagues (1990)

examined 2-weeks of exercise-deprivation with 40 male runners. For study inclusion,

participants had to run 3 times a week for 10 miles a week for at least 3 months. The

control group was instructed to continue their regular running over the course of the 6-









week study. The experimental group was asked to stop running for Week three and four

during study. The measures used to assess the deprivation effects were the General

Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Williams, 1988) and the Zung Anxiety and

Depression Scales (Zung, 1974).

It was found that the deprived runners reported increased anxiety, insomnia,

somatic symptoms, social dysfunction, and depression compared to the control group

during the exercise-deprivation period. The amount of time to experience the

psychological changes was dependent on the variable measured. That is, the General

Health Questionnaire subscales of social dysfunction, somatic symptoms, anxiety, and

insomnia were present at the end of the first week of deprivation. In comparison,

depression and anxiety did not manifest until the end of the second week. The authors

suggested that the exercise-deprived individuals were able to cope without running for a

week; but after that time, their coping mechanisms failed and depression and anxiety

were evident.

In another study using runners, a 4-week reduction in both training intensity and

volume was undertaken (Wittig, McConell, Costill, & Schurr, 1992). Ten male adult

runners who had been training an average of 14.5 years were examined to determine if

exercise reduction, rather than deprivation, had an effect on mood. The participants

trained for four weeks at their normal training load (baseline) and then started a 4-week

period of reduced training. All participants completed a maximal exercise test to assess

their cardiovascular endurance at baseline. The training volume (i.e., mileage per week)

was reduced by 66%, frequency (i.e., number of exercise sessions) by 50%, and intensity

(i.e., effort) at or below 70% of VO2 max. A 5-kilometer run was performed following









baseline training and after the reduced training-regimen. The POMS was administered

before baseline, after baseline, and following the reduced-training period. Increased

negative mood was evident from baseline to following the reduced training. This finding

demonstrated that reduced exercise volume, frequency, and intensity can alter mood; and

that a complete deprivation period may not be required.

Using a measure of dependence, Conboy (1994) examined exercise deprivation

and mood states using Sachs and Pargman's (1984) model of runners' motivation (Figure

1-2). Subjects were recruited from 5 and 10 km running races and local running clubs.

Fifty-one male and 10 female runners completed the POMS, the Commitment to Running

Scale, and a question regarding their frequency of running per week. Using the scores

from the Commitment to Running Scale, a median split was performed to determine the

low and high exercise-dependent groups. The participants did not alter their normal

running schedule for the duration of the study. On at least 10 days when they ran and at

least 2 days when they did not run, they were required to complete the POMS. The

POMS was completed 20-40 min following exercise on run days and on no-run days it

was completed 24 hours after the last run.

It was found that exercise deprivation resulted in increased mood disturbance. In

contrast to the hypothesis however, the high-commitment and high-dependence runners

did not report the greatest withdrawal effect. In fact, individuals scoring low on

commitment and high on dependence reported the greatest mood disturbance on no-run

days. In contrast, high commitment and high dependence participants displayed the least

mood disturbance between run and no-run days.









In another study in which the participants were aware of the length of the

deprivation period, Mondin and his colleagues (1996) examined the effects of three days

of exercise withdrawal for habitual exercisers. Participants were six males and four

females who exercised 6 to 7 days a week for at least 45 min a day. The participants

customarily engaged in cardiovascular exercise that included jogging, swimming, and

cycling. Measurements included the State Anxiety Inventory, POMS, Depression

Adjective Checklist (Lubin, Hornstra, & Dean, 1978), and a questionnaire that examined

sleep, food intake, and general feelings over the past 24 hours. The study was conducted

on five consecutive days (Monday through Friday) and from Tuesday to Thursday the

participants refrained from their regular exercise routine and also limited their lifestyle

exercise (e.g., take the elevator instead of the stairs, park close to buildings). On Monday

and Friday the participants engaged in their regular exercise routine.

Participants completed the questionnaires at the laboratory on Monday and Friday

within 15-20 minutes following their regular exercise. Tuesday through Thursday the

participants returned to the laboratory and completed the questionnaires at the same time

they were administered on Monday and Friday. The authors found that total mood

disturbance increased on Tuesday, peaked on Wednesday, decreased slightly on

Thursday, and returned to baseline on Friday. It was concluded that exercise deprivation

negatively affected mood, tension, and depression in habitual exercisers.

Prospective Studies

In a prospective study, Szabo and his colleagues (1998) examined runners'

anxiety and mood on running and nonrunning days for 21 consecutive days. Ten female

and 30 male runners were recruited through a local running club. The Commitment to

Running Scale was used to determine the participant's level of devotion to running. The









State Anxiety Inventory and the Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory (Gauvin & Rejeski,

1993) were used to examine mood and anxiety. The questionnaires were completed

every evening and the participants reported how they felt in the last 24 hours. The

subjects also recorded their running distance and time and stated any major life-event

stresses that occurred.

It was found that the females indicated greater exhaustion during the nonrunning

days than the running days. Also on the nonrunning days, men reported more tranquility

than women. Gender-related differences occurred in regards to running speed and

commitment to running, with males scoring higher than females. When effect sizes were

computed however, only revitalization had a moderate effect for females on running

versus nonrunning days. Although these results support better mood on running

compared to nonrunning days, the differences were minor.

Correlational Studies

The majority of deprivation studies are correlational (e.g., Harris, 1981b; Szabo et

al., 1996) and require participants to recall how they felt during nonexercise periods.

Therefore, the deprivation period is not manipulated. For example, Szabo and his

colleagues (1996) had participants recall why they began exercising and whether they

experienced withdrawal effects when they discontinued exercise. Participants were

recruited via the Internet through exercise discussion and news groups. In order to be

eligible for study participation, an individual had to be age 18 or older, understand

English fluently, and engage in physical activity at least twice a week. Five exercise

discussion/news groups received a 3-part message every week for 12 weeks. The first

message consisted of the purpose of the study and criteria for participation. The second

message asked for demographic characteristics and motives for beginning to exercise.









The last message included the following questionnaires: the State-Trait Anxiety

Inventory, the Deprivation Sensation Scale (Robbins & Joseph, 1985), and the

Commitment to Physical Activity Scale (Corbin, Nielsen, Borsdorf, & Laurie, 1987).

Bowlers represented the control group because their activity requires minimal physical

exertion, while participants engaging in aerobic exercise, weight training, cross-training,

and fencing represented the experimental group. It was found that participants who

started exercising for health reasons reported less trait anxiety and commitment; however,

they also felt the most deprivation effects compared to those participants who were active

for other reasons.

Finally, Harris (1981b) surveyed 156 females to investigate why they started

running and the psychological and behavioral effects of running. The author-developed

questionnaire assessed physical changes that occurred due to running, alterations in self-

concept, menstrual cycles, and habits such as drinking, smoking, and eating. Participants

who stopped running (90% of those surveyed) felt less energetic, fatter, depressed, and

tense. Because running was discontinued for various reasons however, no information

was provided on the deprivation length or dependence level.

General Summary

In a comprehensive review of the exercise-deprivation literature, Szabo (1995)

concluded that the majority of studies have found that exercisers report withdrawal

effects during exercise-deprivation periods. The studies reviewed varied markedly on the

number and age of participants, the mode and amount of exercise, the length of

deprivation, and the instruments and methodology used. These inconsistencies among

studies make it difficult to understand the effects of exercise deprivation on psychological

well-being. It has been shown that exercise deprivation leads to negative feelings, but as









to what degree or what point an individual is likely to experience deprivation sensations

is not understood (Szabo, 1998). Withdrawal symptoms may vary from person to person

depending on their level of exercise dependence. In other words, it may take different

individuals a day versus a week to experience the same withdrawal symptoms.

Furthermore, Szabo (1995) commented that recruitment of participants is the greatest

limitation for exercise-deprivation studies because exercise-dependents are not likely to

participate in such a study. Szabo (1995) also noted that most of the studies have

examined runners. Finally, the majority of research has used a single measurement when

gathering data on subjective feelings during deprivation. This creates a limitation

because one measurement may not portray the feelings of an exercise deprived

individual.

In summary, Szabo (1998) brought to the forefront the difficulty of studying

exercise deprivation. He stated that the longer the deprivation period, the less likely

exercise-dependent participants are willing to partake in these studies. The research

design of exercise deprivation should not be limited to experimental designs (Szabo,

1997). Thus, more opportunistic (e.g., taking advantage of situations such as bad weather

and not being able to exercise) and descriptive studies (e.g., qualitative research) need to

be underaken. Szabo (1998) concluded that studying exercise-deprivation is not

"hopeless"; however, there are confounds to control and different methodologies that

must be examined.

Prior Research Limitations

Examining the prior literature that exists on exercise-deprivation is critical in

order to design functional future studies. The following deprivation literature limitations

must be taken into account when designing a study. First, the majority of exercise-









deprivation research has examined runners (Chan & Grossman, 1988; Conboy, 1994;

Crossman et al., 1987; Morgan, 1979; Morris et al., 1990; Sachs & Pargman, 1979;

Thaxton, 1982). Exercise dependence, however, is not confined to this activity. Limited

research has been conducted using various sports and activities such as swimming

(Crossman et al., 1987), aerobic exercise, cross-training, and weight lifting (Gauvin &

Szabo, 1992; Szabo, Frenkl, & Caputo, 1996).

Second, the measurements and parameters used to define exercise dependence

have varied across studies. Inclusion criteria have ranged from participants' weekly

exercise frequency (Baekeland, 1970; Carmack & Martens, 1979), duration of weekly

exercise (Gauvin & Szabo, 1992; Thaxton, 1982), mileage per week (Blumenthal et al.,

1984; Chan & Grossman, 1988; Harris, 1981a; Robbins & Joseph, 1985; Wittig et al.,

1992), and psychological inventories (Conboy, 1994; Estok & Rudy, 1986; Szabo et al.,

1998; Thaxton, 1982; Wittig et al., 1992). Third, it is difficult to generalize study

findings due to the varying lengths of exercise-deprivation (Baekeland, 1970; Conboy,

1994; Thaxton, 1982). For example, research has shown that 24-hours of exercise-

deprivation results in withdrawal symptoms; however, deprivation periods have lasted as

long at one month (Baekeland, 1970; Conboy, 1994; Thaxton, 1982).

Fourth, control groups have been either nonexistent or inconsistent. Researchers

have failed to use control groups when examining deprivation (Morris et al., 1990; Wittig

et al., 1992). In studies where control groups were present, the sample has been

inconsistent with the experimental deprivation group. Additionally, recruiting exercise-

dependent participants willing to forgo exercise is difficult (Szabo, 1998). There is also

concern whether advertising for a deprivation study may confound the results because the









participants can mentally prepare for the time off (Bamber, Cockerill, & Carroll, 2000;

Szabo, 1995).

Fifth, there has been a lack of physiological assessments of exercise behavior.

This results in an over reliance on self-report measures of exercise behavior. The

majority of studies lack physiological measurements because the tests: (a) are time

consuming, (b) require expensive equipment to conduct, and (c) require experimenter

expertise (Conboy, 1994; Crossman et al., 1987; Mondin et al., 1996; Morris et al., 1990;

Szabo, 1996). Physiological measures are deemed more desired than self-reported

exercise because they are more accurate (American College of Sports Medicine [ACSM],

2000).

Finally, measures of mood were often assessed by unstandardized assessment

tools. This could lead to incorrect measurement and interpretation (Baekeland, 1970;

Estok & Rudy, 1986; Gauvin & Szabo, 1992; Wittig et al., 1992). Similarly, instruments

to assess exercise dependence were also prone incorrect measurement and interpretation

(Hausenblas & Symons Downs, 2001).



Purpose

The first purpose of this study was to examine mood states during a 24-hour

exercise-deprivation period between individuals who were high and low on exercise

dependence symptoms. The second purpose was to examine differences concerning

motives to exercise between the high and low exercise-dependent groups. The third

purpose was to determine if differences between groups existed in regards to the

physiological fitness measurements.









Improving upon previous exercise-deprivation research: (1) a standardized

multidimensional measure of exercise dependence was administered to determine the

high and low dependence groups; (2) standardized measures were used to assess mood

states and exercise; (3) age matched groups were recruited; (4) physiological measures of

exercise behavior were conducted; (5) a manipulation check for the deprivation period

was undertaken; and (6) participants were screened for eating disorders to control for the

confound of primary versus secondary dependence.


Significance of the Study

There are several reasons why this study is of significance to the exercise

psychology field. First, using standardized and valid measures has eliminated many of

the limitations in prior studies. Second, this study examines one of the criteria (i.e.,

withdrawal) for exercise dependence, when modified in accordance to the DSM-IV.

Determining whether deprivation exists and if so, to what extent, will assist in learning

whether this is a criterion of exercise dependence. Finally, examining if differences

occur in motivation to exercise between low and high exercise-dependent individuals

may provide insight to bridging the gap between the two extreme behaviors of exercise.


Hypothesis

First, based on previous literature (Szabo, 1995, 1998) it was hypothesized that

individuals high in exercise dependence symptoms would report more mood disturbance

following a 24-hour exercise-deprivation period compared to the low exercise-dependent

group. Specifically, individuals in the high exercise dependence group would indicate a

decrease on the Feeling Scale and the Exercise-Induced Feeling Scale, an increase on the

State Anxiety Inventory, and an increase on the number of negative affect symptoms









following a 24-hour deprivation period compared to the low exercise dependence group.

These results are expected due to the physical and psychological reliance upon exercise

of the high exercise dependence group. Additionally, previous research has supported the

tendency of exercise-dependent individuals to report an increase in negative mood when

exercise deprivation occurs (Baekeland, 1970; Conboy, 1994; Gauvin & Szabo, 1992;

Mondin et al., 1996; Morris et al., 1990; Thaxton, 1982; Wittig et al., 1992).

Second, it was hypothesized that more internal and external motivation to exercise

would be reported by the high exercise-dependent group versus the low dependent group.

In particular, high exercise dependence individuals will score higher on the intrinsic

motivation (IM) subscales of the Exercise Motivation Inventory (Li, 1999; i.e., IM to

know, IM toward accomplishments, and IM to experience stimulation) compared to the

low exercise dependence group. Also the high exercise dependence group will score

higher on the Extrinsic Subscales of Introjection and Identification than the low exercise

dependence group. Elevated levels of intrinsic motivation and self-determination are

likely to be present in individuals with high exercise dependence compared to those with

low levels of exercise dependence because of the discipline necessary to exercise

habitually. Li (1999) demonstrated higher levels of intrinsic motivation and self-

determination in frequent exercisers versus less frequent exercisers.

Third, it was hypothesized that the exercise-dependent group would have a higher

VO2 compared to the low exercise dependence group. Also, the high exercise dependence

group would have a lower percent body fat than the low exercise-dependent group.

Evidence for this hypothesis can be found in the literature on physical activity and

physiological adaptations. That is, fit individuals exhibit a higher estimated VO2 due to






34


increased efficiency of the cardiovascular system and a lower body composition from

more muscle tissue versus fat tissue than unfit individuals (ACSM, 2000).














CHAPTER 2
METHOD


Participants

Participants were 42 volunteer female students (M = 21.18, SD = 3.54) recruited

from sport and fitness classes at the University of Florida. Because sex differences exist

for mood (APA, 1994), only females were recruited as to not confound the results with

gender reporting biases. Also, participants were restricted to the ages of 18 to 25 because

of the positive relationship between age and mood disturbance (APA, 1994). Sample size

was determined using Potvin's (1996) power tables for repeated measure designs and was

based on an alpha of .05, using an average correlation between repeated measures of .50,

and a meaningful effect size of .70. The sample size of 40 (20 in each group) resulted in a

power that exceeded .85 for the main effects and .75 for the interaction effects of interest

for the analyses conducted.


Instruments

Drive for Thinness Subscale. The Drive for Thinness Subscale is a 7-item subscale from

the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (Garner, 1991) that measures the pursuit of thinness

which is the cardinal feature of eating disorders. Statements assessing excessive concern

with dieting, preoccupation with weight, and fear of gaining weight are given with a 6-

point Likert Scale anchored at the extremes with 1 (never) and 6 (always; see Appendix

B). The Drive for Thinness Subscale has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity

(Garner, 1991). The reliability in the current study was good (alpha = .79).









Exercise Dependence Scale. The Exercise Dependence Scale (Hausenblas & Symons

Downs, 2001) is a 30-item scale that assesses exercise dependence symptoms based on

the criteria from the DSM-IV diagnosis for substance dependence (APA, 1994).

Respondents indicate their agreement to the statements using a 6-point Likert Scale

anchored at the extremes with 1 (never) and 6 (always). A high score indicates more

exercise dependence symptoms. The scale also discriminates between exercise

dependent and nondependent individuals. Questions refer to beliefs and behaviors that

have occurred within the last three months (see Appendix C). Examples of items include

"I feel anxious if I cannot exercise," "I organize my life around exercise," and "I often

exercise with more intensity than I intend." Preliminary research has shown the scale to

have adequate reliability and validity (Hausenblas & Symons Downs, 2001).

Exercise Motivation Scale. The Exercise Motivation Scale (Li, 1999) is based on the

self-determination model and contains eight subscales reflecting three types of

motivation: motivation, external motivation, and internal motivation (See Appendix D).

Motivation represents a lack of motivation whereby individuals do not perceive a

connection between their action and the outcome of their action. External motivation is

behavior that is a means to an end. There are four types of extrinsic motivation: (a)

extrinsic regulation which is behavior controlled by external sources such as material

rewards, (b) introjected regulation which represents behavior reinforced through internal

pressures from the individual such as guilt, (c) identified regulation which is behavior

that is internally motivated and performed out of choice, and (d) integrated regulation

which is a fully self-determined form of extrinsic motivation.

Internal motivation represents engaging in a behavior for the pleasure and

satisfaction derived from it. There are three types of internal motivation: (a) internal









motivation to learn which is behavior performed to explore and understand, (b) internal

motivation to accomplish which is behavior engaged in for the pleasure and satisfaction

of accomplishing something, and (c) internal motivation to experience sensations which

represents behavior done to experience a stimulating sensation. Thirty-one statements are

given in which an answer from strongly disagree (1) to strong agree (6) must be selected.

A high score indicates a greater endorsement of motivation. The Exercise Motivation

Scale is a valid and reliable measure of exercise motivation (Li, 1999).

Reasons for Exercise Inventory. Silberstein, Striegel-Moore, Tinko, and Rodin (1988)

developed the Reasons for Exercise Inventory to assess the motives for engaging in

exercise. This inventory consists of 24 statements on a 7-point Likert Scale ranging from

"not at all important" (1) to "extremely important" (7; see Appendix E). The inventory

contains the following seven subscales: Weight Control, Fitness, Mood, Health,

Attractiveness, Enjoyment, and Tone. Higher subscale scores indicate a strong motive to

exercise. Examples of statements include: "To be slim," "To improve flexibility,

coordination," "To cope with stress, anxiety," "To improve my overall health," "To

improve my appearance," "To have fun," and "To improve my overall body shape."

Adequate scale reliability and validity have been established (Silberstein et al., 1998).

Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire. The Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire is a

three-item scale developed by Godin, Jobin, and Bouillon (1986). Respondents are asked

to recall the number of exercise sessions greater than 20 minutes and the intensity of each

session undertaken within a typical week. The exercise intensities are mild, moderate,

and strenuous (see Appendix F). To determine the metabolic equivalents (METS), the

frequency of exercise is multiplied by the activity intensity. Each intensity level is

appointed a number that is then multiplied by the frequency. The frequency of mild









exercise is multiplied by three, moderate by five, and strenuous by nine. The values for

mild, moderate, and strenuous exercise are added to determine the total exercise index. A

high score represents a greater level of activity. This questionnaire has displayed

adequate reliability and validity (Jacobs, Ainsworth, Hartman, & Leon, 1993).

Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory (EFI). The EFI is a 12-item questionnaire developed

by Gauvin and Rejeski (1993) that examines feeling states sensitive to acute aerobic

exercise. There are four subscales: Positive Engagement, Revitalization, Tranquility, and

Physical Exhaustion. A response ranging from "do not feel" (1) to "feel very

strongly"(5) is provided by the participants (see Appendix G). Higher subscale scores

indicates the most prominent feeling state, while a low score suggests little or no

occurrence of a particular feeling state. This inventory has demonstrated adequate

psychometric properties (Gauvin & Rejeski, 1993).

Profile of Mood States pomsS). The trait version of the POMS developed by McNair,

Lorr, and Droppleman (1971) was used to assess mood. The 65-item questionnaire

contains the following six subscales: tension, fatigue, vigor, anger, confusion, and

depression (see Appendix H). The participants complete the questionnaire based on

"how you are feeling in general." The scale is anchored at 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely).

The higher a score, the more prominent the corresponding mood state. The POMS has

demonstrated adequate reliability and validity (McNair et al., 1971).

Feeling Scale. The Feeling Scale, developed by Hardy and Rejeski (1989), is a single

item measure designed to assess current feeling state. Respondents rate their current

feeling state by choosing a number on the 11-point bipolar scale anchored at the extremes

with -5 (very bad) and 5 (very good; see Appendix I). This scale has demonstrated

adequate reliability and validity (Hardy & Rejeski, 1989).









State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). State anxiety was assessed using Form Y-1 of the

STAI which assesses cognitive aspects of state anxiety (Speilberger, Gorsuch, Lushene,

Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983). The 20-item questionnaire asks respondents to indicate on a 4-

point scale anchored at the extremes with (1) never to (4) always how they currently feel

(see Appendix J). High scores reflect greater state anxiety. Interitem consistency, factor

analytic validity, convergent validity, and divergent validity are adequate (Speilberger et

al., 1983).

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS is a 20-item affective

measure that assesses positive and negative affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

Positive affect (n = 10 items) represents the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic,

active, interested, excited, and alert, for example. High positive affect is characterized by

high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engagement; whereas low positive affect

includes feelings of sadness and lethargy. Negative affect (n = 10 items) reflects the

degree to which individuals feel distressed, upset, guilty, irritable, and nervous, for

example. Low negative affect represents a state of calmness or serenity, while high

negative affect represents unpleasurable engagement and subjective distress. Participants

indicate their endorsement of the affective items on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at the

extremes with 1 (very slightly or not at all) and 5 (extremely; see Appendix K). The

PANAS has been found to consist of two dominant and relatively independent

dimensions that have adequate psychometric properties (Watson et al., 1988).

Body composition. Body composition was assessed using two methods: Body Mass

Index (BMI) and skinfold measurements. First, weight was assessed using a Health-O-

Meter Scale (Technical Services Inc) in kilograms with a built in measurement stick to









determine height. BMI was determined using height and weight (kg/m2) calculations.

The BMI method has a standard error of 5% (ACSM, 2000).

Second, skinfold measurements, which are based on the principle that the amount

of subcutaneous fat is proportional to the total amount of body fat, were used to estimate

body fat percent. Body composition was estimated using the 3-site (triceps, suprailiac,

and thigh) skinfold method (Lange Calipers; Cambridge Scientific Industries, Cambridge,

MD). The following equation was used based on the three sites to estimate body density:

[1.099421- (.0009929*sum of body composition) + (.0000023* sum of body

composition2) (.0001392 age)] (Jackson & Pollock, 1985). A population specific

formula for white females, age 20-80, was used to convert body density to percent body

fat [((5.03/Body Density) 4.59) 100]; Heyward & Stolarczyk, 1996). Using the

correct techniques and equations, the skinfold method has demonstrated adequate

accuracy (SD = 3.5% body fat; ACSM, 2000).

Heart rate. Heart rate was measured using a Polar Favor heart rate monitor (Polar CIC

Inc., New York) that was strapped around the participant's chest during physical activity.

The ACSM (2000) states that there is a linear relationship between heart rate and VO2

and that heart rate is a valid method to estimate exercise intensity. Heart rate monitors

are an accurate and reliable measure of exercise intensity (ACSM, 2000).

Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE). Rating of perceived exertion was determined by the

Borg scale (Borg & Noble, 1974). The Borg scale is an interval scale ranging from 6

(very light) to 20 (maximal exertion) and mimics the amount of exertion the heart is

handling (see Appendix L). The larger the number, the higher the heart rate and thus,

more exertion is being given to the task. RPE is a reliable measure to indicate exercise









tolerance of individuals (ACSM, 2000) and has demonstrated adequate psychometric

properties (Borg & Noble, 1974).

Maximal Exercise Test. To estimate oxygen uptake, subjects performed a maximal

graded exercise test using the Bruce protocol (see Appendix M). This test measures the

cardiorespiratory endurance of an individual. The Bruce Protocol is the most common

treadmill procedure and is best suited for younger and active individuals (ACSM, 2000).

An equation to estimate VO2 max that assesses the total amount of time the

participant was able to follow the treadmill protocol was used. The following equation

calculates VO2 in relative terms, accounting for body weight, so comparisons can be

made among the participants: VO2max (ml/kg/min) = 14.8 1.379 (time in minutes) +

0.451 timee) 0.012 timee; Foster, et al., 1984). This equation has been proven to be

reliable and valid (Heyward & Stolarczyk, 1996). The higher the estimated VO2max, the

better the cardiorespiratory fitness level.

Pre-Participation Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ is a self-report measures which

identifies medical concerns that would place the participant at increased risk for

complications during the exercise test (see Appendix N). Significant medical conditions

and the risk factors for heart disease, as determined by the ACSM, are formulated in

questions in the PPQ (ACSM, 2000). Participants who indicated "yes" to any question

were asked about the condition. If the condition did not put the individuals at risk, in

conjunction with not interfering with any of the variables that the test is determining, the

subject was allowed to participate in the study.

24-Hour History. The 24-hour history questionnaire determines if the participant is

physically able to perform the maximal exercise test and that their behavior in the past

24-hours would not interfere with the results (e.g., drinking alcohol or caffeine,









smoking). This questionnaire inquires about sleep, food intake, caffeine and alcohol

consumption, and physical activity (see Appendix O). It also asks for a general overall

feeling at the present time including: excellent, very good, good, neither good or bad,

bad, very bad, or terrible. This questionnaire has been shown to be reliable for following

pretest instructions suggested by the ACSM for maximal exercise testing and minimizes

the chances of a poor test (ACSM, 2000).

Manipulation Check A manipulation check was undertaken in an attempt to elicit a true

response from the participants when questioned about refraining from exercise for the

past 24 hours. Two Q-tips with colored tips were placed in labeled baggies for the

participant to perform a "swab" test. After the swab test was completed, the Q-tips were

placed back into the baggie and sealed with tape. This was a bogus test used in an

attempt to determine whether the participants adhered to the deprivation period.

Procedure

Prescreen. Participants were prescreened using the Drive for Thinness Subscale of the

EDI-2 (Garner, 1991) and the Exercise Dependence Scale (Hausenblas & Symons

Downs, 2001). The scales were administered to sport and fitness classes. Those students

scoring above 14 points on the Drive for Thinness were disqualified from the study

because they are deemed at-risk for an eating disorder (Gamer, 1991). This was done to

prevent a confound in the results by using primary and secondary exercise dependent

individuals. Students scoring in the upper and lower 33% on the Exercise Dependence

Scale were eligible to participate in the study. These individuals were then phoned and

asked if they would be willing to participate in the study. An appointment was made for

the first visit and instructions were given to ensure proper readiness for the maximal

exercise test to be completed. Participants were told that the first appointment consisted









of a fitness assessment and that they needed to wear shorts, a loose fitting top, and

exercise shoes. They were also informed that at least three hours prior to the appointment

they should not eat heavily or consume any type of tobacco, alcohol, or caffeine, and to

not exercise prior to the fitness test.

Visit 1. On the first visit, the participant was informed of the study procedures and

completed the informed consent (see Appendix P) and PPQ. After the PPQ was reviewed

by the experimenter, a series of questionnaires (i.e., Exercise Motivation Scale, Reasons

for Exercise Inventory, Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire, POMS) along with

questions pertaining to the participants training schedule were completed. A 24-hour

recall was given to the participant to ensure that the directions given over the phone were

followed.

A fitness assessment was then administered at Living Well, the faculty and staff

fitness center for the university. The assessment included height and weight, body

composition measurements (Lange Calipers), as well as the maximal treadmill test.

Weight was measured on a Health-O-Meter Scale in kilograms and height was assessed

in inches using a built-in measurement stick on the scale. Resting blood pressure and

pulse were assessed while the participant was sitting. Blood pressure was measured

using a Labtron Graham-Field Patricia 03-180 Series blood pressure cuff. The resting

pulse was measured for 30 seconds utilizing the radial artery. Body composition was

estimated using the three site measurement of the tricep, suprailiac, and thigh. Skinfolds

were taken on the right side of the body at anatomical locations described by the ACSM

(2000). Each site was measured three times and the average of each site was recorded.

To determine the percent body fat, a population specific formula was used for white

females, age 20-80 (ACSM, 2000). Although the ages in the study ranged from 18-25,









this equation was the most appropriate compared to other equations. In order to not

confound the results, the participants were asked during the assessment if they currently

trained or competed in athletics and any positive responses resulted in dismissal of that

participant. None of the participants met the criteria to be dismissed.

A symptom-limited Bruce protocol was used as the maximal exercise test to

measure estimated VO2max. Two examiners administered this test according to ACSM

guidelines (ACSM, 2000). One examiner was responsible for administering the test,

taking blood pressure, and controlling the grade. The other examiner recorded the heart

rate and blood pressure, controlled the speed, and recorded rating of perceived exertion

measurements. Heart rate was continuously monitored by wearing a heart rate monitor.

The starting treadmill speed was set at 1.7 miles per hour with a 10% grade. Every three

minutes (one stage) the speed was increased and the grade consistently increased by two

percent. At the end of each minute, heart rate was recorded while blood pressure and

RPE were obtained and recorded at the end of every stage. RPE was determined by

holding a large chart in front of the subject and having them verbally express the number

corresponding to how they were feeling. The participant continued the test until

volitional fatigue or they requested to stop. Towards the end of the test, the participant

was verbally encouraged to continue as long as possible to make certain maximum effort

and heart rate were obtained. A cool down was performed to ensure heart rate returned to

pretest level by lowering the grade of the treadmill to zero and reducing the speed to a

normal walking pace.

The examiners were a graduate student trained in exercise testing according to the

ACSM guidelines (ACSM, 2000) and two undergraduate students majoring in exercise









science. The graduate student assumed the role of test administer and the undergraduate

students were trained according to ACSM guidelines and assisted in the testing.

Visit 2. Upon returning for the second visit, the participants were asked to complete a

series of questionnaires assessing mood (i.e., EFI, Feeling Scale, SAI, and PANAS). The

participants were then instructed to choose any cardiovascular exercise machine (i.e.,

Trackmaster TM210 treadmill, Stairmaster 4000PT, Concept II rower, Nordic Track,

Precor EFX546 cross trainer, Stairmaster Freerunner 5400ESS, or NuStep TRS3000

recumbent stepper) and exercise for 30 minutes at a specified heart rate. The specified

heart rate was determined by using the maximum heart rate obtained during the maximal

treadmill test. The heart rate reserve method using the Karvonen formula was utilized to

estimate heart rate at 70% of maximum heart rate. This formula is more accurate than

using the traditional maximum heart rate formula (220 age; ACSM, 2000). A

maximum heart rate of 70% was used to achieve a level both high and low scorers on the

Exercise Dependence Scale could achieve. The low scorers may have struggled to reach

70% while the high scorers would possibly have to refrain from going above 70% of their

estimated VO2 max.

The participants were given the same heart rate monitor used during the

assessment to wear during their cardiovascular session. The watch displaying the pulse

rate was strapped to the equipment so both the participant and the examiner could

monitor the heart rate. Heart rate was recorded every 5 minutes throughout the 30

minutes to ensure the proper effort. The participants were allowed to choose their piece

of exercise equipment. This created a more ecologically valid assessment and reduced

potential anxiety from using either novel or infrequently used equipment (Focht, 2000).

When the 30 minutes was concluded, the participants cooled down on the equipment until









heart rate was within their normal resting range. The same questionnaires that were

completed at the beginning of the session were readministered. The participants were

instructed not to engage in physical activity for the next 24 hours and to limit lifestyle

exercise (e.g., walking/biking to campus).

The participants were also told that upon arrival for the next visit a "swab" test

would be performed that would determine if they exercised during the past 24 hours.

This was a bogus test designed as a manipulation check. It was developed to make the

subject believe that the researchers could determine if she adhered to the deprivation

period. Participants were instructed to return in 24 hours.

Visit 3 (Follow Up). On the last visit, the participants were instructed to perform the

swab test by swiping the inside of each cheek with Q-tips that were colored at one end.

The samples were then put into baggies that were labeled with the participant's subject

number. The series of questionnaires that were completed during the second visit (i.e.,

EFI, PANAS, Feeling Scale, and SAI) were readministered following the swab test. The

participant was then told to sit for 30 minutes in a quiet room where reading and

homework was allowed. The questionnaires were then redistributed and the order of the

questionnaires were counterbalanced to avoid response bias. Upon completion of the

questionnaires, the participants were asked to honestly answer whether they performed

any physical activity within the previous 24 hours. All participants were given a

summary sheet of their fitness assessment results and an e-mail address where they could

contact the experimenter to obtain a copy of the study results.

Drop-Outs

Over the course of the study, four participants discontinued with the study. Two

of the participants completed the first visit and never returned for the remaining visits









despite numerous phone calls. One of the participants who did not return after the first

visit was contacted by phone and said she did not have time to finish the study. The last

participant who did not finish the study completed the first two visits but had an

unexpected event occur and could not attend the last visit unless the deprivation period

was extended to 48 hours. In order to not confound the results, this participant was

dropped from the study. Of the individuals who discontinued the study, three of the four

were high exercise dependent group while only one represented the low exercise

dependent group.


Data Analysis

Prior to examination of the hypotheses the reliability (i.e., internal consistency) of

the measures were undertaken.

Hypothesis 1

Statistical analysis for the first purpose included two separate 2 (group) x 4 (time)

analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the SAI and Feeling Scale with repeated measures on

the time factor. The independent variable was the group (high vs. low dependence) and

the dependent variables were the SAI and the Feeling Scale. Effect sizes were computed

to determine the meaningfulness of the results (Cohen, 1977).

Given the significant correlations between the EFI and PANAS subscales reported

in previous research (Gauvin and Rejeski, 1993), a 2 (group) x 4 (time) multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measures on the second factor were used

to examine group differences for the these scales. Group was the independent variable

and the EFI and the PANAS were the dependent variables. Univariate ANOVA with

Bonferonni adjustments were employed for follow-up analysis of the significant









multivariate effects. Effect sizes were computed to determine the meaningfulness of the

results (Cohen, 1977).

Hypothesis 2

For the second purpose of comparing group differences on mood and reasons and

motives to exercise, three separate MANOVAs were conducted on the Reasons for

Exercise Inventory, Exercise Motivation Scale, and POMS. Follow-up univariate

ANOVA was completed to determine the significant multivariate effects. To determine

the meaningfulness of the results, effect sizes were computed.

Hypothesis 3

For the third purpose, one-way ANOVAs were conducted to determine group

differences on the demographic and fitness variables. The independent variable was the

group and the dependent variables were age, height, weight, BMI, body composition,

cardiovascular endurance, and the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire. Bonferonni

adjustments were made when necessary and effect sizes were computed to determine the

meaningfulness of the results.

Assumptions For Statistical Analyses

Before the analyses were conducted, the data were examined to ensure the

appropriate statistical assumptions were met. The ANOVA has four assumptions: 1)

scores in each group are independent, 2) data are on a parametric scale, 3) the population

is normally distributed, and 4) homogeneity of variance exists (Agresti & Finlay, 1997;

Gravetter & Wallnau, 2000). Assumptions 1 and 2 were met because the groups were

independent and the data was on either an interval or a ratio scale. To determine if

assumption 3 was met (the population was normally distributed) examination of the

skewness of the data was undertaken. The homogeneity of variance was checked using









the Box's M test. In the unlikely chance that the test was less than .05, the largest group

variance was examined to ensure the variance was not more than two times the smallest

group variance in order to not have an impact on the F value (Vincent, 1995).

Assumptions for the MANOVA include: 1) random sampling and independent

scores, 2) normal distribution in each group, 3) homogeneity of covariance matrices, and

4) the relationship for the dependent variables are linear. Random sampling is a design

issue and is not violated in this study. To determine normal distribution, univariate

normality was assessed. If normality was not met, the MANOVA is robust to moderate

violations as long as the violation is created by skewness. The assumption of

homoscedasticity is violated by nonnormality of one of the variables or one variable may

have a relationship to the transformation of another variable. Box's M is the statistical

test that is commonly used to check for violations of homoscedasticity. However, if the

test is significant, it will not prove fatal to the analysis. Although unlikely, if

homoscedasticity is violated, Pillai's Trace will be used to interpret multivariate results.

If homoscedasticity is not violated, Wilks' Lambda will be used to interpret the results.

To determine linearity, bivariate scatterplots will be completed with an elliptical shape

indicating the presence of normality (Vincent, 1995).

Repeated measures ANOVA also has four assumptions: 1) observations are

independent, 2) the population distribution is normal, 3) equivalent covariances, and 4)

homogeneity of variance. The first and second assumptions are experimental design

errors and have not been violated. Examining skewness will assess the variance

distribution. The fourth assumption is violated if the effect of the treatment is not

consistent for all the participants. If homogeneity of variance is violated the Mauchly's






50


Test of Sphericity will be significant and the Greenhouse Geisser adjustment will be used

to adjust the degrees of freedom to obtain a more accurate F statistic (Potvin, 1996).

Assumptions for repeated measures MANOVA include: 1) random sampling and

independent scores, 2) normal distribution in each group, 3) homogeneity of variance-

covariance, and 4) no outliers exist in the data set. The first two assumptions are design

issues and have not been violated. The steps taken when a violation of an assumption

occurs are identical for a MANOVA.














CHAPTER 3
RESULTS


Manipulation Check

A manipulation check was undertaken to determine if the participants adhered to

the instruction of not exercising for 24 hours. On the final visit participants were asked

to respond either yes or no to the following self-report question: "Have you exercised in

the last 24 hours"? No participants indicated that they had exercised in the previous 24

hours. Thus, it was assumed that the subjects adhered to the deprivation protocol based

on their positive response to the "swab tesf' and their indication that they had not

exercised in the past 24 hours.


Reliability of Measures

Internal consistency scores (i.e., Chronbach's alpha) were determined for each

measure prior to examining the study purposes (Nunnally, 1978). Because the alpha

value is inflated as the number of variables increases, there is no set interpretation as to

what is an acceptable value (George & Mallery, 2001). The general rule of thumb for

reliability interpretations displayed in Table 3.1 was used to interpret the alpha levels of

the study measures (George & Mallery, 2001).

The Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory Subscales had acceptable to excellent

reliabilities (range = .73 to .93) for all administrations (see Table 3.2). The State Anxiety

Inventory evidenced excellent reliabilities for the four assessments (range = .91 to .94).









Table 3.1
Rule of Thumb for Reliability of Measurements Interpretation
Alpha Value I
> .9
>.8
>.7
>.6 (
>.5
<.5


interpretation
Excellent
Good
Acceptable

questionablee
Poor
Unacceptable


The reliability scores for the Exercise Motivation Scale Subscales were acceptable to

excellent ranging from .77 to .93 (see Table 3.7). The Reasons for Exercise Inventory

Subscales displayed acceptable to good reliabilities ranging from .69 to .89 (see Table

3.8). The internal consistency scores for the Profile of Mood States (POMS) Subscales

were also adequate with a range of .75 to .92 (see Table 3.9).




Table 3.2
Internal Consistency Scores for the Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory Subscales,
Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), and the State Anxiety Inventory
Exercise N= 42 Rest N= 42

Pre V Post V Pre V Post V
Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory
Positive Engagement .86 .87 .87 .86

Revitalization .81 .79 .93 .87

Tranquility .90 .73 .86 .91

Physical Exhaustion .85 .75 .91 .89
PANAS
Positive Affect .89 .91 .94 .92

Negative Affect .86 .37 .70 .84
State Anxiety Inventory .93 .91 .92 .94









Finally, the Positive Affect Subscale of the PANAS had excellent internal

consistency across all assessments (range = .89 to .94; see Table 3.2). Similarly, the

Negative Affect Subscale of the PANAS had acceptable internal consistencies scores for

the pre-exercise (alpha = .86), pre-rest (alpha = .70), and post-rest assessments (alpha=

.84). In contrast, the post-exercise Negative Affect Subscale was inadequate (alpha =

.37). A factor analysis was attempted to determine if the negative affect subscale factor

structure was related to the inadequate internal consistency. Due to the lack of item

variance (see Table 3.3), however, a factor analysis was unable to be performed. Thus,

the Negative Affect Subscale of the PANAS was eliminated from further analyses.

Implications of the low reliability of the Negative Affect Subscale will be discussed in

the next chapter.



Table 3.3
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) Scores for the Negative Affect Subscale of the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) for the Post-Exercise Assessment of the
Low and High Exercise Dependent (ED) Groups
Variable Low ED High ED Total
n=20 n=21 N=41


M
1.20
1.00
1.20
1.50
1.05
1.25
1.35
.95
1.10
1.30
feeling very


SD
.70
.00
.52
1.15
.22
.55
.99
.22
.31
.92
slightly


M SD M
1.29 .90 1.24
1.14 .65 1.07
1.14 .48 1.17
1.71 .96 1.61
1.14 .48 1.10
1.57 .93 1.41
1.62 .92 1.49
1.14 .48 1.05
1.24 .54 1.17
1.38 .74 1.34
or not at all, 5 = feeling very strongly.


Upset
Scared
Ashamed
Distressed
Hostile
Irritable
Jittery
Afraid
Guilty
Nervous
Note. 1:


SD
.80
.47
.50
1.05
.37
.77
.95
.38
.44
.82









Missing Data

Each participant was required to complete several self-report questionnaires that

represented 358 data points per person. Seven items from the entire data set were

missing, which represented 1.96% of the total item responses. Because of the small

percentage of missing data, mean replacements were computed for the missing variables

(George & Mallery, 2001).

Eating Disorder Screening

In order to distinguish primary from secondary exercise dependence the Drive for

Thinness Subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 was administered. No participants

who completed the Drive for Thinness Subscale evidenced scores in the pathological

range of 14 or greater (Garner, 1991). Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA demonstrated no

significant group differences on the Drive for Thinness Subscale between the high (M =

5.35, SD = 4.74) and low (M = 8.47, SD = 4.53) exercise dependent groups [F (1, 36) =

3.11, 2= .09].


Primary Hypothesis

The primary purpose of the study was to determine if group differences existed

for mood states following 24 hours of exercise deprivation. First, to examine if baseline

group differences existed on the pre-exercise assessment of Exercise-Induced Feeling

states a one-way ANOVA was conducted. No significant group differences on the

Positive Engagement [F (1, 39) = .12, p= .73], Revitalization [F (1, 39) = .03, p = .87],

Tranquility [F (1, 39) = .13, p = .72], and Physical Exhaustion [F (1, 39) = 1.91, = .17]

Subscales were found. Because there were no baseline group differences, these values

were not covaried in subsequent analyses. Second, the Mauchly's Test of Sphericity was









conducted to examine if the assumption of variance was violated. The test determined

the assumption was not met and therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser adjustments were

needed. Third, a MANOVA with repeated measures on time (i.e., pre and post exercise,

pre and post quiet rest) was computed on the Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory

Subscales. Significant main effects for time on the Physical Exhaustion [F (4, 36) = 2.95,

p = .05, w2 = .07], Positive Engagement [F (4, 36) = 15.99, p < .001, w2 = .29],

Revitalization [F (4, 36) = 24.91, p < .001, Y = .39], and Tranquility [F (4, 36) = 9.54, p <

.001, Y = .20] Subscales were evidenced. There was no significant main effect for group

[F (4, 36) = .69, p = .59, Y = .07] or interaction [F (4, 36) = 1.05, p = .40, Y = .36]

evidenced.

To determine where the significance difference occurred for time, post hoc

analysis was performed using the Bonferonni test. Participants reported significantly less

Physical Exhaustion following exercise compared to the pre-exercise and quiet rest

assessments. Positive Engagement and Revitalization were highest after the exercise

session compared to before exercise and before and after the rest period. Finally,

participants reported the most tranquility following quiet rest than before or after exercise

and before quiet rest (1 < .05).

To assess changes in mood an ANOVA with repeated measures on time was

undertaken for the Feeling Scale and the State Anxiety Inventory. Mean and standard

deviation scores for these measures are presented in Table 3.5. First, one-way ANOVAs

were undertaken to determine if baseline group differences existed on the Feeling Scale

and State Anxiety Inventory. Results revealed that there were no group differences on

the baseline assessment of the Feeling Scale [F (1, 39) = .004, p = .95] and the State

Anxiety Inventory [F (1, 39)= .01, p= .92].









Table 3.4
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) Scores for the Exercise-Induced Feeling
Inventory Subscales Across the Assessment Periods for the Low and High Exercise
Dependent (ED) Groups
Positive Revitalization Tranquility Physical
Engagement Exhaustion
M M SD
M SD
SD M SD
Low ED (n= 20)
Exercise Session
Pre 6.50 3.14 5.05 2.56 7.15 3.18 3.55 2.68
Post 8.11 3.03 8.20 2.71 7.45 2.93 2.95 1.64
Rest Session
Pre 6.89 3.35 6.11 3.60 8.37 2.48 2.68 2.93
Post 7.11 3.73 5.68 3.76 9.26 2.51 3.63 3.50
High ED (n= 21)
Exercise Session
Pre 6.81 2.62 5.19 2.75 6.81 2.77 4.81 3.11
Post 9.10 2.17 9.14 2.22 7.14 2.10 2.86 2.06
Rest Session
Pre 6.45 2.21 5.57 2.96 7.52 2.48 3.90 3.25
Post 6.33 2.15 5.10 2.49 8.48 2.68 4.29 3.20
Total (N= 41)
Exercise Session
Pre 6.66 2.85 5.12 2.63 6.98 2.95 4.20 2.94
Post 8.63 2.63 8.68 2.48 7.29 2.51 2.90 1.84
Rest Session
Pre 6.67 2.79 5.82 3.25 7.93 2.48 3.33 3.12
Post 6.70 2.99 5.38 3.13 8.85 2.60 3.98 3.32
Note. A high score indicates prominent feelings while lower scores demonstrate little or no
occurrence of the feeling.

The Feeling Scale was then assessed for the assumption of sphericity using

Mauchly's Test. It was found that homogeneity of variance was present [X2 (5) = 10.35,

p = .07]. Although a repeated measures ANOVA indicated no significant main effect for

group [F (1, 3) = 12.98, p < .001, Y = .51] and interaction [F (1, 3) = 1.27, p= .29, Y =

.03], a significant main effect for time [F (1, 3) = 11.50, p < .001, Y = .23] was found.

Tukey's post hoc test revealed that more positive feelings were reported after the exercise

session than before the exercise session or before and after the rest session (p's < .05).









For the State Anxiety Inventory, Mauchly's Test of Sphericity revealed a lack of

homogeneity of variance [X2 (5) = 14.68, p = .01]. Because the assumption of sphericity

was not met the Greenhouse-Geisser method was used to adjust the degrees of freedom

for an accurate F-test statistic. Analysis revealed no significant main effect for time [F

(1, 2.39) = 2.16, p = .11, Y = .05], main effect for group [F (1, 2.39) = .45, p= .67, Y =

.16], or interaction [F(1, 2.39) = .45, p = .67, Y = .01].


Table 3.5
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) Scores for the Feeling Scale and the State


Anxiety Inventory for the Low and High Exercise Dependent (ED) Groups
Feeling Scale State Anxiety Inventory
M SD M SD
Low ED (n = 20)
Exercise Session
Pre 2.55 2.06 33.80 11.06
Post 3.60 1.54 30.15 8.57
Rest Session
Pre 2.84 1.54 30.84 5.83
Post 2.84 1.80 30.84 6.60
High ED (n = 21)
Exercise Session
Pre 2.33 1.43 33.55 9.25
Post 3.57 1.40 31.95 7.57
Rest Session
Pre 2.05 1.60 34.14 9.86
Post 2.62 0.92 32.85 10.80


Total (N= 41)
Exercise Session
Pre 2.44 1.75
Post 3.59 1.45
Rest Session
Pre 2.43 1.60
Post 2.72 1.40
Note. The Feeling Scale ranges from -5 (very bad) to 5
Inventory a higher score indicates more anxiety.


33.68
31.07

32.58
31.87
(very good).


10.06
8.02

8.27
8.94
For the State Anxiety









Table 3.6
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) Scores for the Negative and Positive Affect
Subscales of the PANAS for the Low and High Exercise Dependent (ED) Groups
Positive Affect Negative Affect
M SD M SD
Low ED (n = 20)
Exercise Session
Pre 29.70 7.51 11.90 3.49
Post 34.42 8.27 10.70 1.26
Rest Session
Pre 28.45 10.04 10.40 .68
Post 25.95 10.78 10.40 1.19
High ED (n= 21)
Exercise Session
Pre 29.86 7.30 13.38 5.55
Post 34.80 6.57 11.29 1.59
Rest Session
Pre 26.48 8.34 12.15 2.54
Post 25.29 6.96 11.86 2.83
Total (N= 41)
Exercise Session
Pre 29.78 7.31 12.66 4.66
Post 34.62 7.35 11.00 1.45
Rest Session
Pre 27.44 9.15 11.29 2.05
Post 25.61 8.92 11.15 2.29


Secondary Hypothesis

The secondary purpose was to compare reasons and motives to exercise and mood

states between the high and low exercise dependence groups. The Exercise Motivation

Scale, Reasons for Exercise Inventory, and POMS was analyzed using a MANOVA to

determine if group differences existed. For the Exercise Motivation Scale, the

MANOVA revealed significant group differences [Wilks' Lambda = .50, F (1, 35) =

4.39, p = .001]. The univariate ANOVA indicated that the high exercise dependence

group scored significantly higher than the low exercise dependent group for Introjected









Regulation [F (1, 42) = 9.90, p = .003, Y = .20], Identified Regulation [F (1, 42) = 18.22,

p < .001, Y = .30], Integrated Regulation [F (1, 42) = 24.91, p < .001, Y = .37], Internal

Motivation to Learn [F (1, 42)= 9.04, p = .004, Y = .18], Internal Motivation to

Accomplish [F (1, 42) = 26.37, p < .001, Y = .39], and Internal Motivation to Experience

Sensation Subscales [F (1, 42) = 30.64, p < .001, Y = .42] (see Table 3.6 for the mean and

standard deviation scores). There were no group differences for the Amotivation [F (1,

42) = 1.64, p = .21, Y = .04] or External Regulation Subscales [F (1, 42) = .25, p = .62, Y

=.01].



Table 3.7
Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), and Alpha Level Scores for the Exercise Motivation
Scale for the High and Low Exercise Dependent (ED) Groups
Alpha
Low ED High ED Total Alpha
Reliability
n=20 n=21 N=41
Variable M SD M SD M SD
Motivation 4.60 2.09 3.83 1.88 4.16 1.98 .92
External Regulation 8.85 4.49 8.21 3.99 4.18 1.99 .90
Introjected Regulation 11.70 4.03 15.50 3.96 13.77 4.38 .77
Identified Regulation 19.35 2.66 22.33 1.97 20.98 2.73 .78
Integrated Regulation 15.10 3.85 20.08 2.75 17.82 4.11 .88
IM to Learn 13.50 4.17 17.04 3.64 15.43 4.24 .93
IM to Accomplish 15.85 3.45 20.54 2.60 18.41 3.81 .81
IM to Experience 15.50 4.38 21.46 2.69 18.75 4.62 .93
Sensation
Note. IM = Internal Motivation

A MANOVA examining the Reasons for Exercise Inventory revealed significant

group differences [Wilks' Lambda= .57, F (1, 37)= 3.99, p= .002, Y = .43]. Follow-up

univariate ANOVA demonstrated that the high exercise dependent group scored









significantly higher than the low exercise dependent group for Weight Control [F (1, 43)

= 4.78, p = .03, Y = .10], Mood [F (1, 43)= 13.59, p = .001, Y = .24], Attractive [F (1, 43)

= 14.07, p = .001, Y = .25], Enjoyment [F (1, 43)= 4.78, p < .01, Y = .25], and Tone

Subscales [F (1, 43) = 6.10, p = .02, Y = .12] (see Table 3.8 for mean and standard

deviation scores). Group differences were not found for the Fitness [F (1, 43) = 2.16, p =

.15, Y = .05] and Health Subscales [F (1, 43) = 2.05, p= .16, Y = .05].



Table 3.8
Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), and Alpha Level Scores for the Reasons for
Exercise Inventory for the Low and High Exercise Dependent (ED) Groups
Low ED High ED Total Alpha
n =21 n = 24 N = 45 Reliability
Variable M SD M SD M SD
Weight Control 13.57 4.69 16.13 3.08 14.93 4.08 .69
Fitness 22.76 3.49 24.29 3.47 23.58 3.53 .83
Mood 15.14 6.13 20.79 4.05 18.16 5.82 .85
Health 22.76 5.00 24.54 3.26 23.71 4.21 .89
Attractive 12.10 4.85 16.58 3.09 14.49 4.56 .88
Enjoyment 8.81 3.54 13.13 4.04 11.11 4.35 .83
Tone 13.05 5.13 16.33 3.76 14.80 4.70 .83
Note. A high score indicates an important reason to exercise.

Finally, a MANOVA was performed for the POMS subscales and results

indicated no mood differences between the groups [Wilks' Lambda = .79, F (1, 37)

1.60, p = .18, = .17]. When examining the mean scores, however, the high exercise

dependent group reported more feelings of depression, anger, confusion, tension, and

fatigue compared to the low group (see Table 3.8). In contrast, the low exercise

dependent group reported more vigor than the high exercise dependent group.









Table 3.9
Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), and Alpha Level Scores for the Profile of Mood
States (POMS) Subscales for the High and Low Exercise Dependent (ED) Groups
Low ED High ED Total Alpha
n =20 n =21 N = 41 Reliability
Variable M SD M SD M SD
Depression 6.00 5.71 8.13 8.53 7.11 7.32 .91
Anger 4.14 4.23 6.30 7.36 5.27 6.10 .92
Vigor 13.76 6.21 12.00 5.95 12.84 6.07 .86
Confusion 6.00 3.52 7.17 4.54 6.61 4.08 .75
Tension 5.81 4.11 9.17 5.19 7.57 4.95 .84
Fatigue 6.14 3.62 7.70 5.79 6.95 4.88 .83
POMS total 41.86 21.46 50.48 30.92 46.36 26.88
Note. A lower score indicates less prominent feelings.


Third Hypothesis

The final purpose was to determine if group differences existed on the

physiological and psychological demographic characteristics. One-way ANOVA's were

conducted for age, height, weight, BMI, percent body fat, cardiovascular endurance,

Exercise Dependence Scale, and Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire scores. No

significant differences were found for age [E (1, 45) = 3.75, p = .06, Y = .08], weight [F

(1, 45) = 3.19, p= .08, Y = .07], height [F (1, 45) = .50, Y = .01], and BMI [F (1, 45) =

2.9, p = .10, Y = .06] (see Table 3.10 for mean and standard deviation scores). In

contrast, significant group differences were evidenced for percent body fat [F (1, 45) =

5.77, = .02, w = .12] and cardiovascular endurance [F (1, 45) = 13.18, p = .001, Y =

.24] with the high exercise dependent group having less body fat and a higher level of

cardiovascular endurance compared to the low exercise dependent group. Significant

differences [F (1, 45) = 284.91, p < .001, Y = .87] occurred between the high and low

groups on the Exercise Dependence Scale with the high group displaying a higher score.









Table 3.10
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) Scores
Dependent (ED) Groups on Physiological Data
Low ED
(n= 21)
M SD
Exercise Dependence Scale 38.33 8.14
Age 22.24 3.88
Height (m) 1.54 .04

Weight (kgs) 66.30 15.02
BMI 25.68 5.87

Percent Body Fat 23.72 7.36
Cardiovascular Endurance 30.07 5.74


for the Low and High Exercise

High ED Total
(n = 24) (N = 45)
M SD M SD
115.54 19.5 79.51 41.79
20.25 3.0 21.18 3.54

1.53 .05 1.54 .05

59.96 8.18 62.92 12.15

23.45 2.47 24.49 4.48

19.65 3.59 21.55 5.96

36.38 5.88 33.44 6.58


To assess group differences for the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire, a one-

way ANOVA was performed for mild, moderate, strenuous, and total exercise. It was

found that the high exercise dependent group scored significantly higher than the low

exercise dependent group on the mild [E (1, 43)= 4.17, p= .05, Y = .17], moderate [F (1,

43) = 4.70, p = .04, Y = .09], strenuous [E (1, 43) = 44.06, p < .001, Y = .52], and total

Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire scores [F (1, 43) = 31.94, p < .001, Y = .45] (see

Table 3.11).




Table 3.11
Mean (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) Scores for the Leisure-Time Exercise
Questionnaire for the Low and High Exercise Dependent (ED) Groups
Low ED High ED Total
n=21 n= 24 N=45
M SD M SD M SD
Mild 7.05 6.25 11.50 7.90 9.48 7.46
Moderate 10.75 10.67 17.92 11.12 14.66 11.38
Strenuous 12.15 14.39 37.31 10.74 25.88 17.71
Total 29.95 18.87 66.73 23.44 50.01 28.19
Note. A larger score represents a higher level of physical activity.











Although not a specific hypothesis, examining the concurrent validity of the

exercise measure (Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire) in relation to the maximal

exercise test results was undertaken (see Table 3.12). The correlation revealed that Total

Leisure-Time Exercise was significantly related to the subcomponents including mild,

moderate, and strenuous exercise. Similarly, cardiovascular endurance was correlated

with strenuous and total leisure-time exercise. The correlation between cardiovascular

exercise and reported leisure-time exercise was highest for strenuous exercise which is

understandable. Thus, self-reported strenuous exercise was linearly associated with a

higher cardiovascular endurance level.




Table 3.12
Pearson Correlations for Cardiovascular Endurance and the Leisure-Time Exercise
Questionnaire (LTEQ)
Cardiovascular
Cr Mild Moderate Strenuous Total
Endurance
Cardiovascular endurance 1.0 .21 .21 .46* .42*
LTEQ Mild 1.0 .47* .29 .60*
LTEQ Moderate 1.0 .42* .78*
LTEQ Strenuous 1.0 .85*
* = p < .01 (2-tailed).














CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

Researchers have consistently found that regular physical activity contributes

positively to physical and psychological health (USDHHS, 1996, 2000). For example,

physical inactivity is directly linked to increased morbidity and mortality for at least six

chronic conditions: coronary heart disease, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis,

and mental health disorders (USDHHS, 2000). Furthermore, a lack of regular exercise is

estimated to contribute to 250,000 deaths per year in the United States (Pate et al., 1995).

Despite the health benefits of exercise, facilitating physical activity adoption and

adherence remains a challenge because approximately 40% of American adults are

sedentary (USDHHS, 2000) and 50% of sedentary adults beginning an exercise program

will dropout within 6 months (Dishman, 1994).

Despite the epidemic of sedentariness in North America there are a very small

number of individuals who exercise excessively. Exercise dependence is defined as a

craving for exercise that results in uncontrollable excessive physical activity and

manifests in physiological symptoms, psychological symptoms, or both (Hausenblas &

Symons Downs, 2001). It has been suggested that a cardinal symptom or criterion of

exercise dependence is withdrawal or deprivation effects (Szabo, 1995). Withdrawal

symptoms are manifested by either the characteristic withdrawal symptoms for exercise

(e.g., anxiety, irritability) or the same amount of exercise is engaged in to relieve or avoid

withdrawal symptoms (APA, 1994). The general purpose of this thesis was to examine

the psychological effects of withdrawal in high and low exercise dependent individuals.









This chapter discusses the findings for the first, second, and third purposes as well as

outlines the study limitations and future research directions.


First Purpose

The first purpose of this study was to examine mood states during a 24-hour

exercise deprivation period between individuals who were high and low on exercise

dependence symptoms. It was hypothesized that the high exercise dependent group,

compared to the low exercise dependent group, would report more negative affect, an

increase in state anxiety, and a decrease in positive feeling states after 24-hours of

exercise deprivation. Contrary to the hypothesis, there were no differences between the

high and low exercise dependence groups on the mood measures following the

deprivation period.

The lack of group difference in mood between the groups may be due to the

sensitivity of the mood instruments, the length of the deprivation period, or the prescribed

exercise intensity. First, although 24-hours has been reported to elicit withdrawal

symptoms (Conboy, 1994; Modin et al., 1996), a longer time period may be required in

certain populations to elicit deprivation effects. Second, exercise intensity before the 24-

hour deprivation period was prescribed at 70% of the estimated VO2 max. It is plausible

that the high exercise dependent group was exercising at a lower intensity than normal;

and the low exercise dependence group was exercising at a higher intensity than normal.

Thus, self-selected exercise intensities, which elicit a more ecologically valid

environment, may be more likely to produce withdrawal effects (Focht, 2000). Future

research is need to examine withdrawal effects with self-selected versus prescribed

exercise intensities.









Third, consistent with past researchers, it was found that the PANAS was not

sensitive to mood changes during an acute bout of exercise and quiet rest (Gauvin,

Rejeski, Norris, & Lutes, 1997; Nemanick & Munz, 1994; Rejeski, Gauvin, Hobson, &

Norris, 1995). That is, participants reported high positive affect and low negative affect

at all the assessments which created either a ceiling or floor effect. Furthermore, the

Negative Affect Subscale of the PANAS had inadequate internal consistency and was

dropped from further analysis. To explore the potential "cause" of the poor alpha value,

inter-item consistency, mean, and standard deviation values of each item were examined.

A factor analysis was also attempted to determine if the factor structure of the Negative

Affect Subscale was indeed unidimensional as proposed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegan

(1988). However, because of the lack of variance within each item of the subscale, a

factor analysis could not be performed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Other researchers have had similar "problems" with the PANAS (Diener &

Emmons, 1985; Egloff, 1998; Killgore, 2000). For example, Diener and Emmons (1985)

found that affect differed greatly depending on the time frame the questionnaire was

answered (e.g., same day or a week later) and concluded that positive and negative affect

were independent of each other rather than closely correlated. Similarly, Egloff (1998)

found the PANAS to contain two independent subscales while Killgore (2000)

discovered a more appropriate model by splitting the negative affect into two factors.

Thus, the current results coupled with prior researchers' findings, questions the utility of

the PANAS in assessing affect in repeated measures designs.









Second Purpose

The second purpose was to examine differences concerning motives to exercise

between the high and low exercise dependent groups. Group differences for motivation

to exercise was found between the low and high exercise dependent groups. Consistent

with the hypotheses, the high exercise dependent individuals were more intrinsically and

extrinsically motivated to exercise compared to the low exercise dependent group

according to the Exercise Motivation Scale. Specifically, for extrinsic motivation, the

high exercise dependent individuals were more likely to exercise due to internal pressures

(e.g., guilt, anxiety) and perform exercise out of choice to achieve personal goals. This is

supported by Summers and colleagues (1982) who found marathon runners participated

in running because of the personal challenges involved. When external sources of

motivation have been internalized it creates pressure and the individual feels the need to

exercise for aesthetic reasons or to prevent feelings of embarrassment if not at a peak

fitness level (Pelletier et al., 1995).

For intrinsic motivation, results revealed that high exercise dependent individuals

were more likely to exercise in order to: 1) explore and understand health or fitness, 2)

experience the pleasure and satisfaction of accomplishing something, and 3) to

experience a stimulating sensation. These results coincide with the motivation necessary

for the high exercise dependent group to continually exercise in the face of obstacles and

is consistent with the findings that exercise dependent individuals report high barrier self-

efficacy (Hausenblas & Symons Downs, 2001). In short, these results are in agreement

with the findings of Li (1999) who found that frequent exercisers displayed higher levels

of intrinsic motivation to learn, intrinsic motivation to experience sensations, integrated

regulation, and identified regulation.









Different reasons for exercising were also apparent between the high and low

exercise dependent groups. Compared to the low exercise dependent group, the high

exercise dependent group was significantly more likely to exercise to control their

weight, to prevent negative mood, to be attractive to the opposite sex, for the enjoyment

of physical activity, and to tone muscles. The finding that the exercise dependent group

reported exercising to prevent negative mood is consistent with the DSM-IV criterion of

withdrawal effects. That is, the exercise dependent individual engages in physical activity

to either prevent negative mood or to promote a positive mood.

It was also found that the fitness and health reasons to exercise were not

significantly different between the high and low exercise dependent groups. This finding

is interesting considering that there were significant fitness level differences between the

two groups. That is, the high exercise dependent group was more fit than the low

exercise dependent group. Fitness and health reasons to exercise may not have differed

between the two groups because the high exercise dependent group already displayed a

high level of fitness and health while the low exercise dependent group had little concern

for health and fitness, possibly because they lack knowledge of the benefits of exercise.

In regards to the mood traits, which was measured by the Profile of Mood States,

it was found that the low exercise dependents reported significantly more tension than the

high exercise dependents. Although statistically nonsignificant the high exercise

dependent group reported more depression, anger, confusion, and fatigue compared to the

low exercise dependent group. These results imply that high exercise dependent

individuals rely on exercise to control or prevent moods such as depression, anger, and

confusion. The high exercise dependent group scored higher on fatigue than the low









exercise dependent group which is consistent with their behavior because the high

exercise dependent group engaged in excessive physical activity.




Third Purpose

The third purpose was to determine if group differences existed in regards to the

physiological fitness measurements. After the appropriate computations were completed,

data analysis was undertaken. Consistent with the hypothesis the high exercise

dependent group had significantly higher estimated V02 max than the low exercise

dependence group. As the amount of exercise training increases, VO2 max also

increased. Also, in accordance with the prediction the high exercise dependent group had

significantly lower heart rates than the low exercise group due to adaptations within the

body that occur with training.

Another consequence of regular physical activity is a lower body composition.

As exercise level increases fat levels usually decrease and the amount of muscle may

increase or stay the same (ACSM, 2000). Because of the physiological adaptations,

individuals who are more physically active tend to have lower body composition.

Consistent with the hypothesis it was found that the high exercise dependent group had

lower percent body fat than the low exercise dependent group. In contrast to the

hypothesis no significant group differences were evidenced for BMI. The disparity in

results between the BMI and percentage body fat, both measures of body composition,

may be due to the fact that percentage body fat takes muscle mass into account and is

more accurate. That is, although BMI is a good indicator of body composition in

epidemiological studies, BMI has a high predictive error, especially with physically









active populations (ACSM, 1996). Thus, it is conceivable for regular exercisers to have a

mesomorphic body type, which may result in higher BMI, despite the fact that they have

low percent body fat.

In accordance with a lower body composition, it was also found that the high

exercise dependent individuals engaged in more mild, moderate, and strenuous leisure-

time exercise than the low exercise group (USDHHS, 2000). Taking into account the

various theories explaining the processes of exercise dependence, the difference in the

frequency of strenuous activity for the high exercise dependent group, compared to the

low exercise dependent group, may support the sympathetic arousal hypothesis

(Thompson & Blanton, 1987). The need for an increase in exercise is one of the

components of the hypothesis which can be illustrated by the increasing variance in the

intensity levels of exercise determined by the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire.


Limitations

Although the current study improved on many aspects of the past literature, it is

not without limitations. Study limitations include: gender, age, self-report measures,

deprivation period, school interference, and equations for physiological calculations.

First, the use of females and an age constraint limits the generalization of the results.

Future researchers are encouraged to examine exercise deprivation in males and

participants of varying ages. Second, self-report measures have an inherent limitation

due to socially desirable responses (Sallis & Owen, 1998). Questionnaires that require

recall also have an inherent bias because of improper recollection of events.

Additionally, the participants may perceive and report aspects of themselves differently

than others may report about them. Thus, future research is needed using both direct and









indirect (i.e., self-report) measures of mood and exercise behavior when examining the

effects of exercise deprivation.

Third, the deprivation period was only 24 hours. Although 24-hours has been

shown to elicit deprivation sensations, it is plausable that a longer deprivation period

could exhibit more drastic changes in mood (Modin et al., 1996). However, when a time

frame longer than 24-hours is used, the likelihood of high exercise dependent individuals

participating is less likely and the dropout rate increases (Szabo, 1995).

Fourth, testing was done during varying times of the school semesters. Thus, the

time throughout the semester when the individual testing (e.g., midterm exams) was

conducted may have effected the participants' mood and exercise behavior. For example,

if a participant completed the study during an exam period, mood and anxiety may have

been elevated.

Fifth, the use of various equations to determine physiological data may result in

measurement errors (ACSM, 2000). For example, there are various equations and

methods to determine body density (ACSM, 1996). The skinfold method of body

composition has a range of error one to two percent higher than hydrostatic weighing, the

"gold standard" to assess body composition. To determine percent body fat, an age-

specific equation was utilized for 18 to 80-year-old females (ACSM, 2000). Some

participants were younger than 18 which may of caused their percent body fat to be

slightly higher or lower than if an equation was used for 16-20 year olds. A maximal

exercise test was performed to evaluate cardiorespiratory fitness and to obtain a maximal

heart rate. Although maximal exercise tests are highly correlated with VO2 max tests, the

former is less accurate than the latter. Gas analyzers were not used in the current study,









however, to determine if maximal effort was reached due to its high cost, need for special

facilities, and scheduling complexities.

Sixth, heart rate range for each participant was used to determine their exercise

intensity of 70% of estimated VO2 max. Although this allows for uniformity, participants

were required to exercise at a prescribed versus self-selected exercise intensity. Recent

research has found that self-selected exercise represents a more ecological valid

environment and is more conducive to illiciting mood states from acute exercise bouts

(Focht, 2000).

Finally, although the participants were instructed to not exercise and limit their

lifestyle activity for the 24 hour deprivation period, their physical activity behavior was

not directly monitored. In an attempt to have the participants answer honestly in regards

to their physical activity behavior over the 24 hour deprivation period they performed the

"swab test", which was used as a manipulation check. Also, the last questionnaire

completed inquired if the participant had exercised within the last 24-hours.


Theoretical Implications

A variety of hypotheses have been developed in the exercise dependence

literature to explain the process of dependence. The findings of this study provide

evidence to partially support the affective states hypothesis. The Reasons for Exercise

Inventory revealed that high exercise dependent individuals participate in exercise to

control mood more than low exercise dependent individuals. Whether the high exercise

dependent group exercises to experience positive moods or to avoid negative moods, the

desire to regulate mood is the important aspect. Although not all of the hypotheses to









explain exercise dependence were examined, results from the current study provide

partial support for the affective states explanation.


Future Directions and Conclusions

Despite the increase in research examining exercise dependence and deprivation

in recent years (Hausenblas & Symons Downs, 2001) the antecedents and consequences

of exercise dependence remains unknown. Thus, there are several areas for future

research in this area. First, experimenting with various exercise deprivation time periods

could determine whether there is a threshold of deprivation until withdrawal symptoms

are experienced (APA, 1994; Szabo, 1995). Second, the existence of exercise

dependence across a variety of activities is unknown. For example, depriving an

individual from an activity they enjoy may provoke greater withdrawal effects.

Third, examining the motivation of individuals in different phases of their

commitment and enjoyment to exercise will aid in finding if a point exists where

motivation becomes intrinsic versus extrinsic. Research on changes in motivation to

exercise is crucial to increasing exercise adherence. Reasons why individuals exercise or

are sedentary could further be explored to understand the differences in values and beliefs

that low and high exercise dependent individuals give to exercise.

Fourth, strong conceptual and theoretical frameworks should guide the

development of study hypotheses. For example, the General Theory of Addictions (see

Jacobs, 1986) predicts that people with chronically abnormal arousal states (either high or

low), who also tend to respond to feelings of inferiority and rejection by flight into denial

and fantasy, are at the greatest risk for acquiring a dependency. This theory has been









applied to gambling, eating, and drinking addictions. Research is needed to further

examine its utility for exercise dependence.

Finally, the majority of the research examining the causal mechanisms of exercise

dependence has been correlational (Hausenblas & Symons Downs, 2001). Longitudinal,

ecological momentary assessments, qualitative, and experimental studies are required to

enhance our understanding of the etiological mechanisms of exercise dependence.

In conclusion, the present study has explored differences in low and high exercise

dependent individuals and found that the groups are distinct in certain areas. Motivation

and reasons to exercise, along with physiological data such as heart rate,

cardiorespiratory fitness, and body composition were different between the two groups.

In examining mood though, the groups were similar even after the deprivation period.
















APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL

UNIVERSITY OF

FLORIDA
Insdlullonml Review Board 9A PsIcholgy Bldg
P0Box 12250
(jGeesville, FL 32611-2250
Phone: (.52) 392-0433
Fax; (352) 392-9234
E-mail: irt2,fuil.edu
hrt','welt ortn uL cdu.'ltrirbfl
DATE: 4-Feb-2VM0

TO: Ms. Amy Hagan
POB 118204
Campus
FROM: C, Michael Levy, Chair
Unii ersiry of Fiorida
Institutional Review Board
S.UBJECT: Approval of Phrlocol U 2000 154
TITLE: Exercise Deprivation and Mood
FUNDING: Unfunded
I am pleased to advise you thatr he University of Florida Institutional Review Board has recommended
approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined thai riis research presents no more
than minimal risk to participants. Given your protocol, it is essential that you obtain signed Jucurmenisaion
of informed consent from each participant. Enclosed is the dated, IRB-approved informed consent to be
used when recruiung participants for the research,
If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including ite need to increase the number of participants
authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement them so that the Board can assess their
impact on your protocol. In addition, you must report to the Board any unexpected complication s hal
affect your participants.

If you have not completed this protocol by 24-.Feb-20j I, please telephone our office _9.-i0433 ), and we
will discussthe renewal process with you.
It is important that you keep your Deparaneni Chair informed abuuL the 5taltu ofthis research protocol.

CML.bj)js

cc; Dr. Heather Hausenblas














APPENDIX B
DRIVE FOR THINNESS SUBSCALE

Instructions. Using the scale provided below, please complete the following

questions as honestly as possible. For each item, decide if the item is true about you

never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), often (4), usually (5), or always (6). Please place

your answer in the blank space provided after each statement.


1 2 3 4 5 6
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Usually Always



1. I eat sweets and carbohydrates without feeling nervous.

2. I think about dieting.

3. I feel extremely guilty after overeating.

4. I am terrified of gaining weight.

5. I exaggerate or magnify the importance of weight.

6. I am preoccupied with the desire to be thinner.

7. If I gain a pound, I worry that I will keep gaining.














APPENDIX C
EXERCISE DEPENDENCE SCALE

Instructions. Using the scale provided below, please complete the following questions
as honestly as possible. The questions refer to current exercise beliefs and behaviors that
have occurred in the past 3 months. Please place your answer in the blank space
provided after each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Never Always

1. I am unable to reduce how long I exercise.
2. I exercise to avoid feeling stressed.
3. I spend a lot of time exercising.
4. I exercise longer than I intend.
5. I exercise despite recurring physical problems.
6. I continually increase my exercise intensity to achieve the desired
effects/benefits.
7. I organize my life so that there is always time for exercise.
8. I exercise longer than I expect.
9. I am unable to reduce how often I exercise.
10. I exercise to avoid feeling fatigued.
11. I would rather exercise than spend time with family/friends.
12. I think about exercise when I should be concentrating on school/work.
13. I exercise longer than I plan.
14. I spend a great deal of time in exercise-related activities.
15. I exercise when injured.
16. I exercise to avoid feeling irritable.
17. I exercise to avoid feeling anxious.
18. I spend most of my free time exercising.
19. I continually increase my exercise frequency to achieve the desired
effects/benefits.
20. I am unable to reduce how intense I exercise.
21. I exercise to avoid feeling restless.
22. I exercise despite persistent physical problems.
23. A great deal of my time is spent exercising.
24. I exercise to avoid feeling tense.
25. I choose to exercise so that I can get out of spending time with family/friends.
26. I exercise more often than I intend.
27. There is no better way to spend my time than to exercise.
28. I continually increase my exercise duration to achieve the desired






78


effects/benefits.
29. I exercise more often than I plan.
30. Exercise is my only recreational activity.














APPENDIX D
EXERCISE MOTIVATION SCALE


WHY ARE YOU CURRENTLY PARTICIPATING IN THIS ACTIVITY?I

Direction: Please read each of the statements listed below and indicate how strongly you
agree or disagree with each statement by circling the appropriate response to the right of
the statement. Use the following response categories:


Strongly disagree Disagree Moderately disagree Moderately agree
(SD) (D) (MD) (MA)


Agree Strongly agree
(A) (SA)


1. For the pleasure it gives me to experience
positive sensations from the activity.

2. For the satisfaction it gives me to increase
my knowledge about this activity.

3. Because other people believe that it's a
good idea for me to exercise.

4. Because I must exercise to feel good
about myself.

5. Because I believe that regular exercise is
a good way to enhance my overall
development.

6. Because it is consistent with what I value.

7. I can't understand why I am doing this.

8. Because I feel pressure from others to
participate.

9. Because I think that exercise allows me
to feel better about myself.


SD D MD MA A SA

1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6



1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6










WHY ARE YOU CURRENTLY PARTICIPATING IN THIS ACTIVITY?

SD D MD MA A SA


10. For the pleasure I experience while
learning about this activity.

11. For the satisfaction I feel when I get into
the flow of this activity.

12. Because I feel I have to do it.

13. To satisfy people who want me to
exercise.

14. Because exercising is an important aspect
of how I perceive myself.

15. For the pleasure of understanding this
activity.

16. I have no idea.

17. For the pleasure of mastering this activity.

18. Because I think it is a good thing for my
personal growth.

19. For the pleasure I experience when I feel
completely absorbed in the activity.

20. For the satisfaction I feel while I try to
achieve my personal goals during the
course of this activity.

21. Because I would feel guilty if I did not
take the time to do it.

22. Because I value the way exercise allows
me to make changes in my life.

23. It is not clear to me anymore.

24. Because I think exercise contributes to
my health.


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6



1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6










WHY ARE YOU CURRENTLY PARTICIPATING IN THIS ACTIVITY?


25. To comply with expectations of others
(e.g., friends).

26. For the enjoyment that comes from how
good it feels to do the activity.

27. Because I enjoy the feelings of discovering
more about this activity.

28. Because I enjoy the feelings of improving
through participating in this activity.

29. Because I feel that changes that are taking
place through exercise are becoming part
of me.

30. For the pleasure I experience while trying
to become the person I want to be.

31. Because I would feel ashamed if I was not
doing anything to improve my current
situation.


SD D MD MA A SA


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6



1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6














APPENDIX E
REASONS FOR EXERCISE INVENTORY

People exercise for a variety of reasons. When people are asked why they exercise, their
answers are sometimes based on the reasons they believe they should have for exercising.
What we want to know are the reasons people actually have for exercising. Please
respond to the items below as honestly as possible. To what extent is each of the
following an important reason that you have for exercising? Use the scale below, ranging
from 1 to 7, in giving your answers.






1. To be slim
2. To lose weight
3. To maintain my current weight
4. To improve my muscle tone
5. To improve my strength
6. To improve my endurance, stamina
7. To improve my flexibility, coordination
8. To cope with sadness, depression
9. To cope with stress, anxiety
10. To increase my energy level
11. To improve my mood
12. To improve my cardiovascular fitness
13. To improve my overall health
14. To increase my resistance to illness and disease
15. To maintain my physical well-being
16. To improve my appearance
17. To be attractive to members of the opposite sex
18. To be sexually desirable
19. To meet new people
20. To social with friends
21. To have fun
22. To redistribute my weight
23. To improve my overall body shape
24. To alter a specific area of my body














APPENDIX F
LEISURE-TIME ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions. This is a scale which measures your leisure-time exercise (i.e. exercise that
was done during your free time such as intramural sports-NOT your sport/fitness class).
Considering a typical week, please indicate how often (on average) you have engaged in
strenuous, moderate, and mild exercise more than 20 minutes during your free time?

1. Strenuous exercise: heart beats rapidly (e.g. running, basketball, jogging, hockey,
squash, judo, roller blading, vigorous swimming, vigorous long distance bicycling,
vigorous aerobic dance classes, heavy weight training)
How may times per typical week do you perform strenuous exercise for 20 minutes or
longer?

2. Moderate exercise: not exhausting, light sweating (e.g. fast walking, baseball, tennis,
easy bicycling, volleyball, badminton, easy swimming, popular and folk dancing)
How may times per typical week do you perform moderate exercise for 20 minutes or
longer?

3. Mild exercise: minimal effort, no sweating (e.g. easy walking, yoga, archery, fishing,
bowling, horseshoes, golf)
How may times per typical week do you perform mild exercise for 20 minutes or
longer?















APPENDIX G
EXERCISE-INDUCED FEELING INVENTORY (EFI)

Instructions: Use the following scale to indicate the extent to which each word below
described how you feel at this moment in time. Record your answer in the blank space
provided.


0 = Do Not Feel
1 = Feel Slightly
2 = Feel Moderately
3 = Feel Strongly
4 = Feel Very Strongly

Refreshed
Calm
Fatigued
Enthusiastic
Relaxed
Energetic
Happy
Tired
Revived
Peaceful
Worn-out
Upbeat















APPENDIX H
PROFILE OF MOOD STATES

Instructions: Below is a list of words that describe feelings people have. Please read
each one carefully. Circle ONE number that corresponds to the degree which best
describes HOW YOU HAVE BEEN FEELING DURING THE PAST WEEK
INCLUDING TODAY.


0 = Not at all
1 = A little
2 = Moderately
3 = Quite a bit
4 = Extremely

1. Friendly ............ 0 1 2 3 4
2. Tense.............. 0 1 2 3 4
3. Angry .............. 0 1 2 3 4
4. W orn out............ 0 1 2 3 4
5. Unhappy............ 0 1 2 3 4
6. Clear-headed ......... 0 1 2 3 4
7. Lively .............. 0 1 2 3 4
8. Confused ............ 0 1 2 3 4
9. Sorry forthingsdone. .0 1 2 3 4
10. Shaky ............. 0 1 2 3 4
11. Listless ............ 0 1 2 3 4
12. Peeved ............ 0 1 2 3 4
13. Considerate........ 0 1 2 3 4
14. Sad ............... 0 1 2 3 4
15. Active............. 0 1 2 3 4
16. Onedge........... 0 1 2 3 4
17. Grouchy........... 0 1 2 3 4
18. Blue.............. 0 1 2 3 4
19. Energetic .......... 0 1 2 3 4
20. Panicky............ 0 1 2 3 4
21. Hopeless........... 0 1 2 3 4
22. Relaxed............ 0 1 2 3 4
23. Unworthy .......... 0 1 2 3 4
24. Spiteful ............ 0 1 2 3 4
25. Sympathetic........ 0 1 2 3 4
26. Uneasy............ 0 1 2 3 4
27. Restless ............ 0 1 2 3 4






86


28. Unable to concentrate. 0 1 2 3 4
29. Fatigued........... 0 1 2 3 4
30. Helpful............ 0 1 2 3 4
31. Annoyed .......... 0 1 2 3 4
32. Discouraged ........ 0 1 2 3 4
33. Resentful ........... 0 1 2 3 4
34. Nervous ........... 0 1 2 3 4
35. Lonely ........... 0 1 2 3 4
36. Miserable .......... 0 1 2 3 4
37. Muddled .......... .0 1 2 3 4
38. Cheerful ............0 1 2 3 4
39. Bitter ............. 0 1 2 3 4
40. Exhausted .......... 0 1 2 3 4
41. Anxious........... 0 1 2 3 4
42. Ready to fight ....... 0 1 2 3 4
43. Good-natured ...... .0 1 2 3 4
44. Gloomy............ 0 1 2 3 4
45. Desperate .......... 0 1 2 3 4
46. Sluggish ........... 0 1 2 3 4
47. Rebellious .......... 0 1 2 3 4
48. Helpless ............0 1 2 3 4
49. W eary............. 0 1 2 3 4
50. Bewildered ......... 0 1 2 3 4
51. A lert.............. 0 1 2 3 4
52. Deceived .......... 0 1 2 3 4
53. Furious............ 0 1 2 3 4
54. Efficient........... 0 1 2 3 4
55. Trusting............ 0 1 2 3 4
56. Fullofpep......... 0 1 2 3 4
57. Bad-tempered ....... 0 1 2 3 4
58. Worthless.......... 0 1 2 3 4
59. Forgetful ......... 0 1 2 3 4
60. Carefree ........... 0 1 2 3 4
61. Terrified ........... 0 1 2 3 4
62. Guilty ............. 0 1 2 3 4
63. Vigorous........... 0 1 2 3 4
64. Uncertain about things 0 1 2 3 4
65. Blushed............ 0 1 2 3 4















APPENDIX I
FEELING SCALE

Using the scale below, please indicate how you feel right now, at this moment


-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

very bad bad faily bad neutral fairly good good very good















APPENDIX J
STATE-TRAIT ANXIETY INVENTORY

Directions: A number of statements which people have used to
describe themselves are given below. Read each statement and
then circle the appropriate number to the right of the statement
to indicate how you feel right now, that is, at this moment.
There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much o 0
time on any one statement but give the answer which seems to > m
describe your present feelings best.

r H 00
1. I feel calm ................................ .. ......................... 1 2 3 4
2. I feel secure ........................................................... 1 2 3 4
3. I am tense ......................................................... ........ 1 2 3 4
4. I feel strained ...................................... ................. ..... 1 2 3 4
5. I feel at ease ............... .................... ............. ... ...... 1 2 3 4
6. I feel upset ......................................................... ....... 1 2 3 4
7. I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes ..................... 1 2 3 4
8. I feel satisfied ................................. ............... ..... ..... 1 2 3 4
9. I feel frightened ................................ ............ ............ 1 2 3 4
10. I feel comfortable .................. ...................................... 1 2 3 4
11. I feel self-confident .................. ............. ........ ........... .. 1 2 3 4
12. I feel nervous ...................................... ................. ...... 1 2 3 4
13. I am jittery ........... ........................................ ......... 1 2 3 4
14. I feel indecisive ................. ................ ............ ............. 1 2 3 4
15. I am relaxed .................. ........... ................ ... ........ 1 2 3 4
16. I feel content ...................................... ................. ...... 1 2 3 4
17. I am w worried ...................................... ............... ........... 1 2 3 4
18. I feel confused ..................... ............. ............. ............. 1 2 3 4
19. I feel steady .................................................... ........ 1 2 3 4
20. I feel pleasant ................. .............. ............... 1 2 3 4














88















APPENDIX K
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE

This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions.
Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word.
Indicate to what extent each word applies to you right now. Use the following scale to
record your answers.


1 = very slightly or not at all
2 = a little
3 = moderately
4 = quite a bit
5 = extremely


interested
upset
scared
proud
ashamed
attentive
active


distressed
strong
hostile
irritable
inspired _
jittery
afraid


excited
guilty
enthusiastic
alert
nervous
determined















APPENDIX L
RATING OF PERCEIVED EXERTION

6

7 Very, very light

8

9 Very light

10


11 Fairly light

12

13 Somewhat hard

14


15 Hard

16

17 Very hard

18


19 Very, very hard















APPENDIX M
BRUCE PROTOCOL TEST REPORT


Resting Data


Heart Rate:


Blood Pressure:


Exercise Data


Time Speed Grade Heart Rate Blood Pressure RPE Comment
0-1 1.7 10 XXXXXXXXX
1-2 XXXXXXXXX
2-3 "
3-4 2.5 12 XXXXXXXXX
4-5 XXXXXXXXX
5-6
6-7 3.4 14 XXXXXXXXX
7-8 XXXXXXXXX
8-9
9-10 4.2 16 XXXXXXXXX
10-11 XXXXXXXXX
11-12 "
12-13 5.0 18 XXXXXXXXX
13-14 XXXXXXXXX
14-15 "
15-16 5.5 20 XXXXXXXXX
16-17 XXXXXXXXX
17-18 "
18-19 6.0 22 XXXXXXXXX
19-20 XXXXXXXXX
20-21 "
21-22 XXXXXXXXX
XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IP 0 XXX




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs