6.4 Correlations of Feelings and RPE
6.4.3 Correlations of Feelings
CrossFit Post feelings in CrossFit are moderately positive related with feelings at the end of the training (r= -.55, p< .05*) and these feelings at fatigue are strong and positively correlated with feelings at the half of the exercise bout (r = -.86, p<.01**). Thus feelings in fatigue can account for about 30% of the variation in post feelings (table 11).
Table 11:Pearson Product–Moment Correlation Coefficients of FS in CrossFit and Pilates
FS M±SD half fatigue post
CrossFit pre 2.34±0.85 .37 .16 -.07
half -0.41±1.37 .86** .44
fatigue -0.82±1.89 .55*
post 3.06±0.93
Pilates pre 2.89±0.58 .46 .41 .39
half 3.09±0.59 .39 -.26
fatigue 3.58±0.35 .57
post 3.63±0.36
*p<.05; **p<.01
Pilates Significant correlations for feelings could not be obtained in Pilates.
6.5 Enjoyment
The data in table 12 show that PACES total scores13 are not significantly affected by physical activity neither in CrossFit (F(2,30) = 1.67, p= .21, η2 = .10) nor in Pilates (F(2,12)= 0.69,p= .52,η2 = .10). There is also no significant time effect in positive (CrossFit: F(2,30) = 2.32, p = .12, η2 = .13; Pilates: F(2,12) = 0.36, p = .71, η2 = .06) or negative (CrossFit: F(2,30) = 0.90, p = .42, η2 = .06; Pi-lates: F(2,12) = 0.50, p = .62, η2 = .08) items. Also comparisons between pre-and end-measurements of the PACES questionnaire are not significant in all three variables in both CrossFit (total score: F(1,15)=1.27,p =.28,η2 = .08; positive:
F(1,15) = 0.38, p = .55, η2 = .03; negative: F(1,15) = 1.29, p = .27, η2 = .08) and Pilates (total score: F(1,6)= 1.45, p = .27, η2 = .19; positive: F(1,6)= 0.79, p=.41, η2 =.12; negative: F(1,6)= 2.89,p= .14,η2 = .33). There are no diff er-ences between types of sport in all enjoyment variables over the three time points (total score: F(2,42)= 1.58, p = .22, η2 = .07; positive: F(2,42) = 1.31, p = .28, η2 =.06; negative: F(2,42)=0.98,p=.38,η2 =.05). And there are no differences
13Paces total score=positive items+trans-coded negative items
Table 12: PACES Scores in CrossFit and Pilates
PACES M±SD
CrossFit positive pre 38±3.7
(n=16) half 36±5.0
end 37±4.1
negative pre 10±2.1 half 11±3.4
end 11±4.3
total pre 69±5.2
half 67±7.9
end 68±7.5
Pilates positive pre 38±5.0
(n=7) half 38±2.9
end 39±3.0
negative pre 10±2.3
half 9±1.8
end 9±1.7
total pre 70±7.0
half 71±4.1
end 71±4.1
between types of sport in all enjoyment variables over pre and end time points (total score: F(1,21)=2.01,p=.17,η2 =.09; positive: F(1,21)=1.08,p=.31,η2 =.05;
negative: F(1,21)=1.55,p=.23,η2 =.07).
7 Discussion
The aim of this thesis was to propose that the affective dose-response to physical activity differs between high intensity and low to moderate intensity sport and to examine changes of enjoyment in a "translational" research design with additional interest on inter-individual differences and the accurate representation of the shape of the affective response.
Physiological findings CrossFit participants experienced on average an improve-ment of total repetitions from the first to the last (benchmark) workout of+35.4%.
Therefore it is legit to claim, that subjects improved strength and muscular en-durance over time with participating less than one time per week over ten weeks (on average 7.56 workouts) as it is stated in previous studies (Paine et al., 2010;
Platek et al., 2011; Patel, 2012). Exercises between both benchmark workouts were repeated in no (ringrows) or only one (boxjumps) or two (situps and wallballs) addi-tional workouts with different modalities (see table 13 in the appendix). That leads to the conclusion that improvements in repetitions from the first to the tenth work-out are not due onely because of the specific training of the movements, but also due to an increase in work capacity and cardiovascular improvements as well as in increasing coordination, agility, balance, and accuracy (Paine et al., 2010), ending up in Glassman’s (2004) statement that the fitness CrossFit advocates and develops, is broad, general and inclusive.
Ratings of Perceived Exertion Measurements of perceived exertion (RPE) and followed intensity classification by Garber et al. (2011) and Gaesser and Poole (1996) lead to the conclusion, that subjects performed physical activity over all time points in CrossFit with heavy intensity at or above the ventilatory threshold and in Pilates with light to moderate intensity, below the ventilatory threshold. Therefore differences in the affective behavior to exercise, between both types of sport, are
as-sumed as researchers did before (Backhouse et al., 2007; Parfitt and Hughes, 2009;
Ekkekakis, 2013).
Hypothesis 1: Feelings Pre- to Postexercise Results of comparisons from pre-to postexercise showed an increase of pleasure for about 0.72 feeling points in high intensity training, namely CrossFit, and for about 0.74 feeling points in light to mod-erate intensity training, Pilates participants. This underlines the "feel-better" effect (Fox, 1999), limited on pre- to post measurements of physical activity, regardless to exercise intensity. On average CrossFit participants expressed postexercise signifi-cant lower rates of feelings than Pilates participants for about -0.57 feeling points.
It is questionable if postexercise feeling measures are only valid when relativized to the baseline (pre-exercise), or if assessed valence in its absolute rating is directly comparable, albeit the feelings measured to previous time states. The hypothesis that there were differences between light to moderate and high intensity training in affects postexercise, compared to affects measured prior to exercise, can be par-tially confirmed. The relative change of feelings pre- to postexercise does not differ between CrossFit and Pilates significantly.
Hypothesis 2: Feelings During Exercise Changes in affects during high intensity training, compared to affects measured prior to and postexercise, showed a quadratic time effect with valence decreasing in CrossFit into negative ratings (pre to fatigue:
-3.16 feeling points) and having an affective rebound (fatigue to post: +3.88 feel-ing points) from negativity to positivity, after exercise cessation, consistent with the opponent process model described by Solomon (1980, 1991). As Ekkekakis et al.
(2008) suggests, the magnitude of the rebound is proportional to the extent of the negative shift during a strenuous bout of exercise, but typically somewhat larger in absolute terms. During light to moderate intensity training, changes in affects compared to affects measured prior to and postexercise showed a linear time effect with an increase of valence over time (pre to half: +0.20 feeling points; half to
+ +
significant differences in valence between single time points during exercise. This result is in line with the findings of Ekkekakis et al. (2011), who revealed, that light and moderate exercise intensities typically do not have a negative impact on during-exercise affective states, when analyses of change are performed at the level of groups. It is estimated, that such intensities may improve affects during exercise, which is underlined with the results of the Pilates group. The hypothesis, that there are differences between light to moderate and high intensity training in affects mea-sured during exercise, compared to affects measured prior to and postexercise, can be confirmed. There is a significant main effect for type of sport in feelings over all four time points, as well as in during (half and fatigue) feelings. The results are consistent with Ekkekakis et al. (2005a) dual-mode model, which hypothesized that acute affective responses should remain pleasurable in the moderate domain, because cognitive processes have a low-to-moderate effect as the intensity does not threaten the system. In the heavy domain, cognitive factors dominate and affective responses will be variable with some individuals interpreting the intensity as plea-surable and others as displeaplea-surable. In the severe domain, affective responses will be mostly of displeasure as the intensity poses a substantial threat to the system.
Hypothesis 3: Enjoyment Examining enjoyment showed no changes in PACES questionnaire total scores along with no changes in positive and negative scores over time in both types of sport. No differences between CrossFit and Pilates partic-ipants in PACES scores could be determined. In this study, enjoyment has not been affected by exercise intensity and this hypothesis has to be refused. Consistent with Mullen et al. (2011) this is not altogether surprising, as aerobic and resistance train-ing have each been associated with favorable self-reported changes in vitality, and less favorable outcomes, including reduced pleasure and increased fatigue (Ekke-kakis et al., 2008). On the other hand, these two training modes produce different patterns of cognitive and brain changes. It is also possible that anticipated positive
and negative emotions may have balanced out the participants overall enjoyment.
Despite this, both groups experienced high rates of enjoyment on the scale.
Inter-individual Differences As shown in the results (6.3 Valence), low to mod-erate intensity physical activity produced a linear shape of the affective response and high intensity physical activity produced a quadratic shape.
Inter-individual (as well as intra-individual) differences of the affective response can mainly be reported in the heavy domain of exercise intensity, with feelings of pleasure and displeasure, what is equal to findings of previous studies (e.g. Ekkeka-kis, 2003). Moderate intensity is associated with pleasure, whereas severe intensity of exercise is associated with displeasure. Out of the 16 participants in CrossFit, 14 either responsed in exactly the same manner than on group-level average or re-ported roughly congruent pattern of change, with three out of them not entering the negative zone of feelings. Only two (but 12,5% in this case) individuals revealed considerable differences in the magnitude and direction of affective change, than the other. This approves the conclusions of Ekkekakis and Petruzzello (2002) and Raedeke (2007), that there can be no such thing as a global "exercise-specific affect"
in as much as research compellingly indicates that not all individuals experience the same affective responses and obtain the same psychological benefits to all types of exercise conditions and across all exercise settings.
8 Conclusion
The design of this study, in nontraditional naturalistic settings, using a target group which can be assigned to society, in a field setting at the sample CrossFit and Pilates, followed the request of Raedeke (2007) and Biddle and Fuchs (2009), to translate findings from research into practice. Taking into account that the majority of re-search, examining affective responses to exercise, has been conducted in laboratory settings, it is appropriate to translate findings into ecologically valid "real-world"
ff ff
activities of high intensity and light to moderate intensity during exercise. Con-sequently, beyond the oft-cited observation that "exercise makes you feel better"
(Fox, 1999), exercise might also produce changes that are unpleasant. This case could also show postexercise improvement in valence compared with preexercise in high intensity training, after a massive rebound of negative feelings during exercise.
Compared with low to moderate intensity training, the affective benefits had the same height from pre- to postexercise. If the huge magnitude from lowest pleasure ratings to highest pleasure ratings in high intensity training can play a larger role in exercise adherence than merely feelings of displeasure can not be told yet. Just as the fact, if regular attendance to high intensity training can promote adoptions in feeling patterns to positivity, is unclear.
Ending with an example of physical exercise adoption and thereby supposed aff ec-tive beneficence. Considering an average person with no interest in sport attendance in cases of health prevention. As result of sedentary living over a period of decades, the fitness (or maximal aerobic capacity) of this person is very poor and the body mass index lies between being regarded normal weight or overweight, thus being healthy. This person performs light rated (<3 METs14) physical activities, such as walking with<4 km/h, playing trumpet, watering plants, in the domain of moder-ate intensity. Performing modermoder-ate rmoder-ated (3-6 METs) physical activities, including such common everyday tasks as bicycling < 16 km/h (for leisure, to work or for pleasure), general house cleaning, moving furniture or walking to work or class, the persons would enter unintentional the heavy domain of intensity. In this domain va-lence is more likely to be negative and would lead into a reduction in pleasure. This leads to the idea, to reduce displeasure of physical activity in everyday tasks, with the ambition to prepare people better to common intensities with physical exercise.
With training in high intensities, a greater exercise tolerance can be achieved and recruits a process, which confers enduring resilience to stress (see Salmon, 2001).
14The Metabolic Equivalent of Task is a physiological measure expressing the energy cost of physical activities. It is defined as the ratio of metabolic rate during a specific physical activity.
1 MET is considered as the Resting Metabolic Rate obtained during quiet sitting (Ainsworth et al., 2000)
Transferred, there is a shift of intensity domains and physical every day activities are performed with a lighter intensity, not causing negative affects and therefore people feeling better. Merely exercise training with heavy intensity, which in many cases would exceed the preferred level, increases displeasure, which causes peo-ple not attending to training classes. As a result a type of sport is needed, which motivates to train with high intensity, experiencing all the physiological and psycho-logical processes, which are normally tried to be avoided and leading to established postexercise "affective beneficence". This "feel-better" effect can increase the like-lihood of participating to following bouts of high intense exercise. CrossFit has the potential to create an environment, with its competition like group setting, covenant class bookings, self-efficacy gaining training modalities and quazi-exclusive paying members, that triggers people to adhere. Novices attending to a free CrossFit test-training class do know that it will be a rather intensive test-training - and affiliates can only offer these first classes at no charge, with knowing they are likely to sign in.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
The primary limitation of this study is the small and perhaps nonrepresentative sam-ple that did not include men. Further limitations are expected due to the naturalistic setting. The dimension of the influence of group settings, music and trainer person-ality are unclear. It is also important to point out that postexercise assessments were limited to 10 min, allowing the possibility of additional changes in affect beyond this time point.
Future research is also needed to examine the qualities of naturalistic settings, which influence enjoyment and affective responses. Understanding those qualities may shed insights on environmental characteristics, which can be considered in the de-sign and implementation of exercise programs, likely to lead to positive affective changes that could account for a part of the variability in physical activity behavior and adherence.
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge CrossFit Konstanz, especially Oliver Thomaschewski, for the chance to realize this study and for making me CrossFit. Further acknowledge for the support to Dr. Barbara Beckers, who was so friendly to let me measure at her Pilates classes. Special thank goes to my brother, Sebastian Maibach, for standing me by in language questions and the library learning group, for making the period of completion an unforgettable and pleasant time. Finally, I would like to thank the participants, in CrossFit and Pilates and the students of the sport psychology project seminar, without whom this project would not have been possible.
The author has no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this work.
References
Acevedo, E., Gill, D., Goldfarb, A., Boyer, B., et al. (1996). Affect and per-ceived exertion during a two-hour run.International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27(3):286–292.
Acevedo, E., Kraemer, R., Haltom, R., Tryniecki, J., et al. (2003). Percentual re-sponses proximal to the onset of blood lactate accumulation. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 43(3):267.
Ainsworth, B. E., Haskell, W. L., Whitt, M. C., Irwin, M. L., Swartz, A. M., Strath, S. J., O Brien, W. L., Bassett, D. R., Schmitz, K. H., Emplaincourt, P. O., et al.
(2000). Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(9):S498–S504.
American College of Sports Medicine (2009).ACSM’s Resource Manual for Guide-lines for Exercise Testing and Prescription,6thedition+ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription,8thedition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Backhouse, S. H., Ekkekakis, P., Biddle, S. J., Foskett, A., Williams, C., et al.
(2007). Exercise makes people feel better but people are inactive: Paradox or artifact? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29(4):498.
Bergeron, M. F., Nindl, B. C., Deuster, P. A., Baumgartner, N., Kane, S. F., Krae-mer, W. J., Sexauer, L. R., Thompson, W. R., and O’Connor, F. G. (2011).
Consortium for health and military performance and american college of sports medicine consensus paper on extreme conditioning programs in military person-nel. Current sports medicine reports, 10(6):383–389.
Biddle, S. J. (2000). Emotion, mood and physical activity. In Biddle, S. J., Fox, K., Boutcher, S., et al., editors, Physical activity and psychological well-being, pages 63–87. Routledge, Abingdon.
Biddle, S. J. and Ekkekakis, P. (2005). Physically active lifestyles and well-being.
In Huppert, F. A., Baylis, N., and Keverne, B., editors,The science of well-being, pages 140–168. Oxford University Press.
Biddle, S. J. and Fuchs, R. (2009). Exercise psychology: A view from europe.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(4):410–419.
Biddle, S. J. and Mutrie, N. (2008).Psychology of physical activity: Determinants, well-being and interventions. Routledge, Abingdon.
Bixby, W. R., Spalding, T. W., and Hatfield, B. D. (2001). Temporal dynamics and dimensional specificity of the affective response to exercise of varying in-tensity: Differing pathways to a common outcome. Journal of Sport&Exercise Psychology, 23(3):171–190.
Borg, G. (1985). An introduction to Borg’s RPE-scale. Mouvement Publications, Ithaca, NY.
Borg, G. (1998).Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales.Human kinetics, Cham-paign, IL.
Borg, G. (2004). Anstrengungsempfinden und körperliche Aktivität. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 101(15):A–1016.
Canadian Defence Force (2008). Combat fitness program. Army Fitness Manual Supplement.
Chogahara, M. (1999). A multidimensional scale for assessing positive and negative social influences on physical activity in older adults.The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 54(6):S356–S367.
Damasio, A. R. (1995). Toward a neurobiology of emotion and feeling: Operational concepts and hypotheses. The Neuroscientist, 1(1):19–25.
Ekkekakis, P. (2003). Pleasure and displeasure from the body: Perspectives from exercise. Cognition&Emotion, 17(2):213–239.
Ekkekakis, P. (2013). Pleasure from the exercising body. Two centuries of changing outlooks in psychological thought. In Ekkekakis, P., editor,Routledge Handbook of Physical Activity and Mental Health, Routledge International Handbooks. Tay-lor & Francis, Abingdon.
Ekkekakis, P. and Acevedo, E. (2006). Affective responses to acute exercise: to-ward a psychobiological dose-response model. In Acevedo, E. O. and Ekkekakis, P., editors, Psychobiology of physical activity, pages 91–109. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
Ekkekakis, P. and Backhouse, S. H. (2009). Exercise and psychological well-being.
In Maughan, R., editor,The Olympic Textbook of Science in Sport, Encyclopaedia of sports medicine. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., and Petruzzello, S. J. (2004). Practical markers of the transition from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism during exercise: rationale and a case for affect-based exercise prescription. Preventive medicine, 38(2):149–159.
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., and Petruzzello, S. J. (2005a). Some like it vigorous:
Measuring individual differences in the preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27(3):350.
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., and Petruzzello, S. J. (2005b). Variation and homogeneity in affective responses to physical activity of varying intensities: An alternative perspective on dose–response based on evolutionary considerations. Journal of sports sciences, 23(5):477–500.
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., and Petruzzello, S. J. (2008). The relationship between exercise intensity and affective responses demystified: To crack the 40-year-old nut, replace the 40-year-40-year-old nutcracker! Annals of Behavioral Medicine,
Ekkekakis, P., Lind, E., and Vazou, S. (2010). Affective responses to increasing levels of exercise intensity in normal-weight, overweight, and obese middle-aged women. Obesity, 18(1):79–85.
Ekkekakis, P., Parfitt, G., and Petruzzello, S. J. (2011). The pleasure and displea-sure people feel when they exercise at different intensities. Sports Medicine, 41(8):641–671.
Ekkekakis, P. and Petruzzello, S. J. (1999). Acute aerobic exercise and affect.Sports Medicine, 28(5):337–347.
Ekkekakis, P. and Petruzzello, S. J. (2000). Analysis of the affect measurement conundrum in exercise psychology: I. Fundamental issues. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 1(2):71–88.
Ekkekakis, P. and Petruzzello, S. J. (2002). Analysis of the affect measurement co-nundrum in exercise psychology: IV. A conceptual case for the affect circumplex.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3(1):35–63.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications, London, third edition.
Fox, K. R. (1999). The influence of physical activity on mental well-being. Public health nutrition, 2(3a):411–418.
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American psychologist, 43(5):349.
Gaesser, G. A. and Poole, D. C. (1996). The slow component of oxygen uptake kinetics in humans. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 24(1):35–70.
Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R., Franklin, B., Lamonte, M. J., Lee,
Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R., Franklin, B., Lamonte, M. J., Lee,