Content uploaded by Zachary Zenko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zachary Zenko on Mar 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Increasing the pleasure and enjoyment of exercise: A novel resistance training protocol
2
3
Jasmin C. Hutchinson1*, Zachary Zenko2, Sam Santich1, & Paul C. Dalton3
4
1Springfield College, Department of Exercise Science and Sport Studies, Springfield, MA.
5
2California State University Bakersfield, Department of Kinesiology, Bakersfield, CA.
6
3Lebanon Valley College, Department of Exercise Science, Annville, PA.
7
8
9
This is the unformatted version of the published article in
10
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
11
12
Citation: Hutchinson, J. C., Zenko, Z., Santich, S., & Dalton, P. C. (2020). Increasing the
13
pleasure and enjoyment of exercise: A novel resistance training protocol. Journal of Sport &
14
Exercise Psychology, 42(2), 143-152. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2019-0089
15
16
17
*Corresponding Author:
18
Jasmin C. Hutchinson
19
Springfield College
20
Department of Exercise and Sport Studies
21
Phone: 413-748-3601
22
E-mail: jhutchinson@springfieldcollege.edu
23
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 2
Abstract
1
This study was designed to test the effect of an increasing (UP) or decreasing (DOWN) intensity
2
resistance training (RT) protocol on pleasure and enjoyment of RT. Participants (N = 40; mean
3
age = 35.0 ± 9.2 years) completed two RT sessions comprising 3 x 10 reps of six exercises. In
4
the UP condition, load progressively increased from 55% to 75% of 1-repetition maximum (1-
5
RM) while in the decreasing-intensity DOWN condition, this pattern was reversed (i.e., 75% to
6
55% 1-RM). The DOWN condition resulted in more overall pleasure compared to UP, and a
7
slope of increasing pleasure while the UP condition resulted in decreasing pleasure. Enjoyment
8
of RT, postexercise pleasure, and remembered pleasure were all significantly greater for DOWN
9
compared to UP (all p > .01). These findings suggest that decreasing RT intensity throughout an
10
exercise bout can elicit a positive slope of pleasure and enhance affective evaluations of exercise.
11
(149 words)
12
Keywords: Affect, resistance exercise, behavioral economics, remembered utility
13
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 3
Regular resistance training (RT) is associated with a myriad of physical and
1
psychological benefits, including improvements in muscular fitness, body composition, insulin
2
sensitivity, bone mineral density, and mental health (Westcott, 2012). Despite these benefits,
3
only 21.9% of men and 17.5% of women in the USA report regular participation in RT (Centers
4
for Disease Control, 2006), with similar estimates for other industrialized nations (e.g. Dalbo et
5
al., 2015). Accordingly, there is a pressing need for new and innovative methods to promote RT
6
that might complement existing cognitive-behavioral strategies. One approach, that has
7
experienced a recent surge of interest and empirical support, considers the importance of
8
exercise-related affect and automatic associations of exercise as important determinants of
9
exercise behavior (e.g., Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018; Rhodes & Kates, 2015).
10
Core affect is described as a simple non-reflective state with two underlying dimensions
11
of valence (pleasantness-unpleasantness) and arousal (activation) (Russell, 1980). “When
12
considering affective response to exercise as a potential determinant of exercise behavior... it is
13
most useful to focus on affective valence” (Lee, Emerson, & Williams, 2016, p.4); therefore, our
14
discussion of affective responses to exercise will concentrate on core affective valence. Affective
15
experiences associated with a particular behavior (e.g., feeling good when walking) can be
16
distinguished from cognitive or reflective attitudes (e.g., walking is good for my health).
17
Hedonic theories of motivation propose that affective responses play an integral role in
18
behavioral decision-making. It is theorized that positive affective responses during exercise will
19
increase participation because people tend to engage in behaviors that bring them pleasure and
20
avoid activities that are accompanied by feelings of displeasure (Ekkekakis & Dafermos, 2012).
21
This notion was supported in a systematic review, which found that a positive change in affect
22
during moderate-intensity exercise was linked to future exercise behavior (Rhodes & Kates,
23
2015).
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 4
Affective Responses to Resistance Training
1
Affective responses to RT are understudied; one reason for this is the lack of guiding
2
conceptual framework (Greene & Petruzzello, 2015). Affective responses to aerobic exercise
3
have been shown to be intensity dependent. The dual-mode model (DMM; Ekkekakis, 2009)
4
posits that affective valence is largely positive during low intensity exercise, at least at the group
5
level, but high intensity exercise (i.e., that which exceeds the ventilatory threshold) elicits
6
negative shifts in affective valence, due to the increasing influence of interoceptive cues that
7
signal homeostatic disruption. At exercise intensities that approximate VT, there is considerable
8
inter-individual variability in affective responses. These differences can be accounted for, in part,
9
by cognitive strategies and individual differences in preference for and tolerance of the somatic
10
sensations associated with vigorous exercise (Ekkekakis, Parfitt, & Petruzzello, 2011). The
11
DMM has been effective in predicting affective responses during aerobic exercise, but there is
12
less evidence on how (or indeed if) this theory may apply to RT (Cavarretta, Hall, & Bixby,
13
2018). Nonetheless, research evidence to date suggests that a similar dose–response relationship
14
exists between intensity and affect for RT.
15
Exercise-induced affective change associated with three different RT protocols (40%,
16
70%, and 100% of 10-repetition maximum [RM]) was examined by Arent, Landers, Matt, and
17
Etnier (2005). A curvilinear dose-response relationship between intensity and affective responses
18
was reported, with moderate intensity (70% 10-RM) training producing the greatest pre- to post-
19
exercise improvement in affective valence, compared to training loads at 40% and 100% 10-RM.
20
Recognizing the need to also assess affect during exercise, Greene and Petruzzello (2015)
21
examined affective responses to RT before, during, and after RT protocols at 70% and 100% 10-
22
RM. Again, a dose-response relationship was supported; participants felt more positive in
23
response to RT loads corresponding to 70% 10-RM, compared to higher training loads
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 5
corresponding to 100% of their 10-RM, and exercise enjoyment was significantly greater
1
following 70% vs. 100% 10-RM conditions. Divergent patterns of affective response emerged as
2
a function of RT load when comparing 40% 1-RM, 70% 1-RM, and a self-selected (SS) load
3
(Focht et al, 2015). In the SS condition, participants were instructed to select a load that would
4
be comfortable, yet still provide a good challenging workout; the mean selected intensity was
5
57% 1-RM. Ratings of pleasure (affective valence) increased from baseline during the 40% 1-
6
RM and SS conditions but decreased from baseline during the 70% 1-RM condition.
7
One limitation of the aforementioned research is that in-task affect ratings were taken
8
during rest-periods between exercise sets, rather than during the actual exercise itself. Such
9
ratings might be influenced by so-called affective-rebound, which describes “a pronounced and
10
instantaneous rebound from affective negativity to affective positivity” as soon as the exercise
11
stimulus is terminated (Hall, Ekkekakis, & Petruzzello, 2002, p.60). This phenomenon is
12
described by the opponent-process theory of affect (Solomon & Corbit, 1974) which posits that
13
all sensations consist of a primary process and an ‘opponent process’ of opposite valence. The
14
opponent process activates after the primary process is quieted, for example, when a painful
15
sensation is abruptly terminated it is immediately replaced by a pleasant feeling of pain relief
16
(Leknes, Brooks, Wiech, & Tracey, 2008).
17
Patterns of Pleasure-Displeasure
18
Findings from the field of behavioral economics indicate that the slope of pleasure (i.e.,
19
rate and direction of pleasure change during an experience) can influence the overall
20
retrospective evaluation of affectively salient tasks (Zauberman, Diehl, & Ariely, 2006). When
21
evaluating an experience, individuals are more likely to prefer an unpleasant experience followed
22
by a more pleasant experience (i.e., an improving pattern) than a pleasant experience followed by
23
a less pleasant experience (i.e., a declining pattern) (Zauberman et al., 2006). This finding
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 6
indicates a recency effect, wherein the pleasure or displeasure experienced at the end of an
1
experience is heavily weighted in the overall affective evaluation of the experience (Kahneman,
2
Fredrickson, Schreiber, & Redelmeier, 1993); a notion that has received some initial support in
3
an exercise context (Brewer, Manos, McDevitt, Cornelius, & Van Raalte, 2000; Hargreaves &
4
Stych, 2013).
5
Manipulating the Slope of Intensity and Pleasure
6
To date, no study has examined the impact of RT load manipulations on the slope of
7
affective valence during RT. This is an important question because it may be possible to create
8
an improving pattern of affect during a RT session, which might enhance the overall memory
9
and evaluation of the exercise session. Beginning an exercise session with a heavy load and
10
ending with a lighter load may allow participants to experience increasing pleasure during RT,
11
while still exposing them to a load and repetition range that is associated with strength and
12
hypertrophic gains (Schoenfeld, Wilson, Lowery, & Krieger, 2016) and a low risk of injury (da
13
Silva et al., 2010). When comparing increasing and decreasing intensity RT protocols, past
14
researchers have reported no significant differences between protocols on strength gains, enzyme
15
activity, or electromyography amplitude (da Silva et al., 2010; Pereira, Mendel, Schettino,
16
Machado, & Augusto-Silva, 2013). Therefore, it seems possible to improve the affective
17
experience of an RT session while keeping the exercise load constant. Such an approach was
18
taken with aerobic exercise by Zenko, Ekkekakis, and Ariely (2016).
19
Zenko et al. (2016) manipulated pleasure responses by randomizing participants to either
20
an increasing or a decreasing intensity protocol during a 15-min bout of recumbent cycling. In
21
the increasing-intensity protocol, exercise intensity was gradually increased from to low (0
22
Watts) to high (120% of the Watts corresponding to the ventilatory threshold [VT]) intensity. In
23
the decreasing-intensity protocol, this pattern was reversed, and intensity was continuously
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 7
decreased from high (120% of VT Watts) to low (0 Watts). The increasing-intensity group felt
1
progressively less pleasant (or more unpleasant) while the opposite was true for the decreasing-
2
intensity group; thus, there was an inverse relation between pleasure and intensity. Despite
3
having similar mean affective responses during exercise, the decreasing-intensity group reported
4
more positive postexercise pleasure, remembered pleasure, forecasted pleasure, and enjoyment
5
of exercise.
6
Based upon the contributions of Greene and Petruzzello (2015), Focht et al. (2015) and
7
Zenko et al. (2016), we predicted that people would feel increasingly more pleasant in response
8
to decreasing RT intensities compared to increasing RT intensities. A training method known as
9
the Oxford technique, or Reverse Pyramid Training (RPT), emphasizes training from a high load
10
to a lighter load (e.g., Pour & Naghibi, 2015). However, RPT involves one or more sets of one
11
particular exercise before moving on to complete a different exercise. This creates a pattern of
12
multiple cycles of high-to-low training loads for the duration of the session. In contrast, we were
13
interested in testing the effectiveness of a Modified Reverse Pyramid Training protocol on
14
affective responses to RT.
15
In the Modified RPT protocol (henceforth “DOWN”), participants completed the RT
16
exercises in a circuit, beginning with one set at a high load (75% 1-RM), then one set a medium
17
load (65% 1-RM), and ending with one set at a low load (55% 1-RM). See Figure 1 for an
18
example comparison between RPT and DOWN. Participants served as their own control using a
19
modified pyramid training (henceforth “UP”) protocol with progressively heavier loads for each
20
circuit (i.e. 55% 1-RM, 65% 1-RM, 75% 1-RM). Thus, unlike previous research (Focht et al.,
21
2015; Greene & Petruzello, 2015), which has investigated the effect of intensity on affect
22
without equating for volume (Cavarretta et al., 2018), the total training volume (number of
23
repetitions and number of sets) was identical in both RT sessions.
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 8
We hypothesized several psychological benefits of Modified RPT. First, DOWN would
1
result in greater postexercise pleasure (H1) and enjoyment (H2) than UP. Second, DOWN would
2
be remembered as more pleasant immediately following the exercise session (H3) and 24 hr later
3
(H4) compared to UP. We also had exploratory hypotheses, including a positive association
4
between the slope of affective responses experienced during exercise and postexercise pleasure,
5
enjoyment, and remembered pleasure (H5) and a stronger association of affective valence toward
6
the end of exercise (vs. beginning) with postexercise pleasure, enjoyment, and remembered
7
pleasure (H6).
8
Method
9
Prior to data collection, the experimental design and analyses were registered and made
10
public on AsPredicted.org (https://aspredicted.org/vj7ps.pdf). The Institutional Review Board of
11
the first author approved the study protocol on June 26, 2017. Each participant provided
12
informed consent and completed a prescreening questionnaire (Riebe et al., 2015) to establish
13
absence of known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease and/or symptoms suggestive of
14
these conditions.
15
A statistical power analysis was conducted using G*Power software (Faul, Erdfelder,
16
Buchner, & Lang, 2009) to establish appropriate sample size for a one-way repeated-measures
17
(RM) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Assuming a medium effect size (f = 0.25;
18
Greene and Petruzzello, 2015), with an alpha level of 0.05, power at 0.8, and anticipating
19
moderately correlated repeated measures (r = 0.40) the power analysis indicated that a minimum
20
of 40 participants would be required.
21
Participants
22
Volunteer participants were recruited using social media posts and flyers distributed on a
23
college campus. Fifty-two participants were screened for eligibility using an online survey
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 9
platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA). Eligibility criteria included age 18–50 yr, nonsmoking,
1
and reporting < 3 days per week of moderate to vigorous aerobic exercise and < 2 days per week
2
of resistance training over the past 6 months. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy and signs or
3
symptoms of and/or known cardiovascular, metabolic or renal disease. After this initial
4
screening, eligible participants (n = 45) were scheduled for testing. Five participants withdrew
5
from the study during testing, therefore 40 participants were retained (30 women, 9 men and 1
6
participant who identified as transgender; mean ± SD; age = 35.0 ± 9.2 yr, height = 166.5 ± 7.7
7
cm, body mass = 77.1 ± 18.7 kg/m2). The racial distribution was 75.0% White, 23.3% Black or
8
African American, 1.7% other; and 1.0% were Hispanic. Most participants were overweight
9
(37.5%) or had obesity (25.0%) according to BMI guidelines, while 37.5% were of normal
10
weight.
11
Measures
12
The main dependent variables for hypothesis testing were affective valence (pleasure),
13
enjoyment, and remembered pleasure. Affective valence (during- and post-exercise) was
14
assessed using the Feeling Scale (FS; Hardy & Rejeski, 1989). The FS is a single-item scale that
15
utilizes the stem ‘How do you feel right now, at this moment?’ with possible responses ranging
16
from -5 (very bad) to +5 (very good) and verbal anchors at zero (neutral) and odd numbers.
17
Drawing on the results of a discriminant function analysis, Hardy and Rejeski concluded that the
18
good/bad dimension of the FS was representative of a core affective expression (Russell, 1980).
19
Exercise enjoyment was measured using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale-8
20
(PACES-8; Mullen et al., 2011). Respondents were asked to rate "how you feel at the moment
21
about the physical activity you have been doing" using a 7-point bipolar rating scale (three items
22
are reverse scored). Higher PACES-8 scores reflect greater levels of enjoyment. Group and
23
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 10
longitudinal invariance has been established for the PACES-8 (Mullen et al., 2011). Internal
1
consistency in the present sample was very good (Chronbach’s α = .86 –.92).
2
Remembered pleasure was measured with the Empirical Valence Scale (EVS; Lishner,
3
Cooter, & Zald, 2008), which is a bipolar rating scale with empirically spaced verbal descriptors
4
along a continuum ranging from “most unpleasant imaginable” to “most pleasant imaginable”.
5
Respondents were administered the question, “How did you feel during the exercise session you
6
just completed?” and they marked their response on the 200 mm EVS using a pencil. EVS scores
7
range from -100 to 100, corresponding to the distance in millimeters from the neutral 0-point in
8
the unpleasant and pleasant directions, respectively. The use of a different measurement format
9
to that of the FS served to minimize common-method variance (Zenko et al., 2016). Participants
10
were also contacted 24 hr postexercise via text message for a second assessment of remembered
11
pleasure (24-hr remembered pleasure) and asked, “Think back to how you felt during the
12
strength exercise circuit yesterday. Please rate how this session felt using a scale from 0 (most
13
unpleasant) to 10 (most pleasant)” (cf. Kwan, Stevens & Bryan, 2017). Participants were
14
required to reply within 1 hr for a response to be considered valid, and all participants did so.
15
Initial plans also included sending text messages 1- and 6-hr postexercise to measure
16
remembered pleasure, but this was not done to avoid potentially irritating participants.
17
To obtain a subjective measure of workload, participants’ ratings of perceived exertion
18
(RPE) were assessed using the CR-10 scale (Borg, 1998). As a manipulation check, these ratings
19
were compared to ensure that the workload was perceived similarly between conditions. Several
20
studies have validated the Borg CR-10 scale for measurement of the perceived intensity of
21
resistance exercise (e.g. Buckley & Borg, 2011). Finally, for exploratory purposes, individual
22
preference for and tolerance of the intensity of exercise was measured using the Preference for
23
and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionnaire (PRETIE-Q; Ekkekakis, Hall, &
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 11
Petruzzello, 2005). This two-factor measure is designed to assess individual differences in the
1
preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity. Items indicative of low tolerance (Items 1, 3,
2
9, 13) and a preference for low intensity exercise (Items 2, 4, 8, 12) are reversed-scored; thus
3
higher PRETIE-Q scores indicate greater preference for and tolerance of high-intensity exercise.
4
Construct validity and concurrent validity data for the PRETIE-Q have been provided by
5
Ekkekakis et al. (2005). Internal consistency in this sample was weak-to-acceptable (Cronbach’s
6
α = .654 and .780 for the Preference and Tolerance subscales, respectively).
7
Procedure
8
Each participant completed three testing sessions that were scheduled 7 days apart and at
9
the same time of day to account for any diurnal variation in the dependent variables. Each
10
session began with a warm up consisting of a 5-min walk on a treadmill, and a series of dynamic
11
stretches. All testing took place in a strength and conditioning facility during a time at which the
12
facility was not in use to eliminate potential distractions (e.g., presence of others, background
13
noise) and was overseen by a certified strength and conditioning specialist.
14
Session 1: Pre-experimental testing and familiarization. The purpose of the first
15
session was (a) to collect anthropometric data; (b) determine 3-RM, to set the workload for the
16
subsequent experimental sessions; and (c) familiarize participants with the self-report measures.
17
Each participant’s body mass (kg) and height (cm) were determined using a physician’s scale
18
(Detecto 437, Webb City, MO). Cybex VR3 selectorized machines (Cybex International,
19
Medway, MA) and a hex bar with polyurethane coated Olympic plates (Perform Better, West
20
Warwick, RI) were used for strength testing. 3-RM was determined by measuring the maximum
21
mass that could be lifted for three repetitions on six different exercises; 45-degree leg press, hex
22
bar deadlift, chest press, narrow-grip seated row, overhead press, latissimus dorsi (lat) pulldown,
23
always performed in the described order. After receiving instruction about proper breathing and
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 12
lifting techniques, participants warmed up using a light load on each exercise. Weights were then
1
added successively until a participant could not complete the three lifts with good form. A 3-RM
2
test was chosen over a 1-RM for reasons of safety (Brzycki, 1993). The 3-RM was used to
3
estimate the 1-RM using Epley's (1985) formula and the load for each exercise was calculated as
4
a percentage of the 1-RM.
5
Participants were oriented to the FS and RPE scales using standardized instructions, were
6
provided examples to assist them in anchoring the perceptual range (see Borg, 1998), and were
7
given the opportunity to ask questions about the scales. To gain experience with the FS and RPE
8
scale, participants reported their responses to these scales during the warm up repetitions (reps)
9
and after each 3-RM attempt. At the end of the testing session participants also responded to the
10
EVS and PACES-8, as an opportunity to familiarize themselves with these scales as well.
11
Sessions 2 and 3: Experimental testing. For experimental testing, participants
12
completed a full body, push-pull, workout, comprising 3 x 10 reps of six exercises; 45-degree leg
13
press, hex bar deadlift (no straps, low handles), chest press, narrow grip seated row, overhead
14
press and lat pulldown. These exercises targeted the major muscle groups and the selected rep
15
range corresponds with recommendations for novice lifters (American College of Sports
16
Medicine [ACSM], 2009). The hex bar deadlift has fewer technical requirements than a
17
traditional straight bar deadlift and places less load on the lumbar spine, making it more
18
appropriate for the novice lifter (Swinton, Stewart, Agouris, Keogh, & Lloyd, 2011). During
19
testing, technical instruction was provided, but with no verbal encouragement.
20
Participants completed one set of each exercise in the order listed before moving on to
21
the next, with a 30s rest period between each set and a 3-min rest period between each circuit
22
(ACSM, 2009). Two experimental conditions (increasing-intensity and decreasing-intensity)
23
were administered using a fully counterbalanced repeated-measures design. In the increasing-
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 13
intensity (UP) condition, participants performed the first exercise circuit at 55% 1-RM, the
1
second circuit at 65% 1-RM, and the third circuit at 75% 1-RM. In the decreasing-intensity
2
(DOWN) condition, the circuits were performed in the opposite order (i.e. 75%, 65%, 55% 1-
3
RM). Thus, exercise intensity either increased or decreased within specific exercises and
4
throughout the overall exercise sessions, which allowed us to test our experimental hypotheses.
5
The specific percentages of 1-RM were selected following pilot testing and in consultation with
6
two strength and conditioning coaches and were designed to encompass low (< 60% 1-RM) and
7
high (>65% 1-RM) loads (Schoenfeld et al., 2016).
8
To avoid conflating affective responses during exercise with rebound effects during
9
recovery, affective valence was assessed 12 times during each circuit (six times each for the
10
work and recovery phases). These assessments occurred during the last 10s of both the work and
11
recovery intervals (i.e. during the last 2-3 reps of the exercise and during the last 10s of the 30s
12
recovery period), which is consistent with previous examinations of affective response to interval
13
workloads (Martinez, Kilpatrick, Salomon, Jung, & Little, 2015). Pilot testing indicated that this
14
was feasible and safe. RPE was assessed immediately upon completion of each circuit.
15
Postexercise pleasure, remembered pleasure, and enjoyment were assessed 5-min following the
16
cessation of the exercise session. Remembered pleasure was assessed a second time 24-hr
17
postexercise via SMS.
18
Statistical Analysis
19
Slope determination and manipulation checks. To test the assumption that a
20
decreasing training load would result in more pleasure over time (DOWN condition), and an
21
increasing load would result in decreased pleasure over time (UP condition), a 2 (condition) by 3
22
(time) RM ANOVA was performed, with pleasure (mean FS ratings for each of the three training
23
loads) used as the dependent variable. The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used when the
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 14
sphericity assumption was violated. Pleasure slopes were calculated by determining the linear
1
trend across the 36 affective valence ratings made during each exercise session, following the
2
process used to calculate the slope of pleasure throughout an exercise session by Zenko et al.
3
(2016). After visual inspection of the data, it was apparent that the slopes of pleasure were in
4
similar directions for both the work and the recovery phases. Therefore, we calculated the
5
pleasure slopes through the 36 total measurements (18 work and 18 recovery). For the UP-
6
condition work intervals only, the affective slope equation was y = -0.080x + 2.737. For the UP-
7
condition recovery intervals only, the affective slope equation was similar, y = -0.085x + 3.049.
8
Similar slope equations were also evident for the work intervals (y = 0.032x + 1.319) and
9
recovery intervals (y = 0.019x + 1.742) of the DOWN condition. In other words, the rebounds
10
during recovery did not alter the direction of the slopes. As an additional manipulation check, the
11
impact of condition (DOWN vs. UP) on mean RPE, overall pleasure (mean of all FS ratings
12
during the exercise session) experienced during exercise, and the slope of pleasure experienced
13
during exercise, was assessed using a RM MANOVA.
14
Primary analysis. For the main analysis, a RM MANOVA was used to determine the
15
effect of condition on the primary dependent variables, namely (a) postexercise pleasure, (b)
16
enjoyment, (c) remembered pleasure, and (d) 24-hr remembered pleasure. The original study
17
preregistration proposed planned comparisons of the four dependent variables using paired t-
18
tests. However, we utilized an updated analysis plan using RM-MANOVA to protect Type 1
19
error rate against multiple comparisons.
20
A series of exploratory correlation analyses were performed to determine the relations
21
between several components of the affective experience and the primary dependent variables,
22
including (a) the slope of pleasure experienced during the exercise sessions, (b) the mean
23
pleasure experienced during the exercise sessions, and (c) the mean pleasure experienced at the
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 15
end of each session (i.e., during the final circuit). Affective responses during work and recovery
1
intervals were assessed separately to avoid conflating affective responses during exercise with
2
rebound effects. This allowed us to explore whether affective responses measured during work
3
intervals influence memory differently than affective responses measured during recovery
4
intervals. For example, the mean pleasure during the work intervals (Mean-Work) was calculated
5
using the affective valence ratings made during the 18 work intervals, likewise, the mean
6
pleasure experienced during the recovery intervals (Mean-Recovery) was calculated using the
7
affective valence ratings made during the rest periods. To test for a recency effect, we examined
8
the importance of timing (i.e. beginning versus ending affect) on the strength of association
9
between real-time (in-task) and retrospective affective evaluations. Finally, a series of
10
exploratory correlation analyses were performed to determine if preference for and tolerance of
11
exercise was related to (a) the slope of pleasure during exercise, (b) postexercise pleasure, (c)
12
enjoyment, (d) remembered pleasure, and (e) 24-hr remembered pleasure.
13
Results
14
Slope Determination and Manipulation Checks
15
The RM ANOVA for mean FS ratings at each of the three training loads yielded a
16
significant effect of condition, F (1, 39) = 7.05, p = .011, ηp2 = .15, a significant effect of time, F
17
(1.52, 59.13) = 20.37, p < .001, ηp2 = .34, and more importantly for our assumption of a relation
18
between load and pleasure, a significant condition by time interaction, F (1.20, 46.82) = 49.30, p
19
< .001, ηp2 = .56. The interaction showed that reducing (increasing) training load over time
20
resulted in increasing (decreasing) levels of pleasure. The shape of this relation was determined
21
using within-subjects contrasts for the effect of time. Within-subjects contrasts indicated the
22
existence of a significant linear component (F (1, 39) = 25.11, p < .001, ηp2 = .39), but no
23
significant quadratic component (F (1, 39) = 3.32, p = .076, ηp2 = .08).
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 16
The impact of condition on mean RPE, overall pleasure, and the slope of pleasure
1
experienced during exercise was assessed using a RM MANOVA. This analysis revealed a
2
significant effect of condition, Pillai’s V = .60, F (3, 37) = 18.51, p < .001, ηp2 = .60. Follow-up
3
univariate tests indicated no differences in RPE between conditions, F (1, 39) = 1.55, p = .221,
4
ηp2 = .04. There was, however, a significant difference in overall pleasure, F (1, 39) = 9.25, p =
5
.004, ηp2 = .19, and a significant difference in the slope of pleasure, F (1, 39) = 53.49, p < .001,
6
ηp2 = .58. This indicates that mean perceived exertion was not significantly different between
7
conditions (4.07 ± 1.25 in the DOWN condition and 4.29 ± 1.12 in the UP condition). Mean
8
RPEs for 55%, 65%, and 75% 1-RM indicated that these intensities were perceived as
9
“moderate” (3.21 ± 1.68), “somewhat hard” (4.01 ± 1.48), and “hard” (5.40 ± 1.5), respectively
10
based upon the Borg scale. The DOWN condition resulted in more positive affective valence
11
during the exercise session than the UP condition (1.99 ± 1.47 FS units vs. 1.38 ± 1.49 FS units),
12
as well as a more positive slope of pleasure (0.03 ± 0.05 FS units vs. -0.08 ± 0.07 FS units). In
13
other words, with each of the 36 successive measurements during the DOWN condition, people
14
were expected to feel slightly better than before, with an increase of approximately 0.03 FS units
15
at each assessment point. In contrast, with each measurement during the UP condition, people
16
were expected to feel slightly worse than before, with a decrease in approximately 0.08 units on
17
the FS. See Figure 2. At the individual level, 37 (92.5%) of participants had more positive slopes
18
in the DOWN condition than the UP condition.
19
Primary Results
20
For the main analysis, a RM MANOVA was used to determine the effect of condition
21
(DOWN vs. UP) on the primary dependent variables of postexercise pleasure, enjoyment,
22
remembered pleasure, and 24-hr remembered pleasure. The RM MANOVA showed a significant
23
effect of condition, Pillai’s V = .45, F (4, 33) = 6.77, p < .001, ηp2 = .45. Univariate tests revealed
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 17
a significant effect of condition on all four dependent variables: (a) postexercise pleasure, F (1,
1
36) = 22.17, p < .001, ηp2 = .38; (b) enjoyment, F (1, 36) = 12.13, p = .001, ηp2 = .25; (c)
2
remembered pleasure, F (1, 36) = 5.26, p = .028, ηp2 = .13; and (d) 24-hr remembered pleasure, F
3
(1, 36) = 11.57, p = .002, ηp2 = .24. As predicted, the DOWN condition resulted in more positive
4
affective evaluations for all dependent variables (see Table 1).
5
Correlates of Remembered Pleasure, Enjoyment, and Postexercise Pleasure
6
The slope of pleasure during the UP condition significantly correlated with postexercise
7
pleasure, enjoyment, remembered pleasure, and 24-hr remembered pleasure. In contrast, the
8
slope of pleasure during the DOWN condition did not significantly relate to any of the dependent
9
variables (see Table 2). In addition, the mean overall pleasure ratings and mean pleasure ratings
10
at the end (i.e., during the final circuit) for both the UP and DOWN conditions were
11
significantly related to postexercise pleasure, enjoyment, remembered pleasure, and 24-hr
12
remembered pleasure (see Table 2). The magnitude and direction of the relations between the
13
pleasure ratings during exercise and postexercise pleasure, enjoyment, remembered pleasure, and
14
24-hr remembered pleasure were similar for affective valence recorded during the work intervals
15
and affective valence recorded during the recovery intervals.
16
End Significance
17
Experienced affect toward the end of the RT session proved to be more strongly related
18
to the dependent variables than experienced affect toward the beginning for both the UP and
19
DOWN conditions, which was in line with our hypothesis (H6). In the DOWN condition, mean
20
affective valence during 55% 1-RM loads (i.e., the ending circuit) was more strongly correlated
21
with each of the dependent variables (r = .41–.60) than mean affective valence during the initial
22
circuit at 75% 1-RM loads (r = .31–.37). The opposite was true in the UP condition where the
23
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 18
magnitude of influence was strongest at 75% 1-RM (r = .55–.78) and weakest at 55% 1-RM (r =
1
.23–.45). See Table 3.
2
Exploring Exercise Preference and Tolerance
3
Exercise preference and tolerance were not significantly related to the slope of pleasure
4
during exercise in the DOWN condition (rs ranged from .01 to −.16), or to postexercise pleasure,
5
enjoyment, or remembered pleasure following the UP condition (rs ranged from .02 to −.18). In
6
contrast, exercise tolerance was significantly related to the slope of pleasure experienced during
7
exercise in the UP condition (r = -.36, p = .023), suggesting the possibility that people with
8
greater self-reported tolerance of exercise had a more negative affective slope during increasing
9
intensity exercise. The relationship between preference for exercise intensity and the slope of
10
pleasure in the UP condition was also in a negative direction (-.28) but was not statistically
11
significant (p = .082). See Table 4.
12
Discussion
13
The present study compared the affective evaluations associated with RT protocols with
14
increasing (UP) and decreasing (DOWN) loads. The expectation that the DOWN condition
15
would elicit a positive mean slope of pleasure and the UP condition would elicit a negative mean
16
slope of pleasure was confirmed and associated with a large effect size. This finding is consistent
17
with previous reports of a negative relationship between RT intensity and affective responses
18
(Focht et al., 2015; Greene & Petruzzello, 2015), and with slopes of pleasure associated with
19
increasing and decreasing intensity aerobic exercise (Zenko et al., 2016).
20
Our confirmatory hypotheses that the DOWN condition would be associated with greater
21
postexercise pleasure (H1) and would be rated as more enjoyable (H2) than the UP condition
22
were fully supported. Likewise, our confirmatory hypotheses that the DOWN condition would be
23
remembered as more pleasant, immediately following the exercise session (H3) and 24 hr later
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 19
(H4) compared to the UP condition was also fully supported. This effect may have been due to
1
differences in experienced pleasure and/or end pleasure, but was not attributable to overall
2
exertion. In contrast to Zenko et al. (2016), who used a between-subjects design, participants in
3
this within-subjects study demonstrated differences in mean experienced pleasure between
4
conditions despite matched training volume and similar levels of perceived exertion.
5
The finding that the DOWN protocol positively influenced both experienced and
6
remembered pleasure, as well as enjoyment, may be of particular importance for RT adherence.
7
Positive affective experiences associated with exercise have been shown to be important
8
predictors of subsequent behavioral engagement (Rhodes & Kates, 2015). Experienced pleasure
9
(i.e. affective valence experienced during physical activity) appears to be especially important in
10
this regard (Van Cappellen, Rice, Catalino, & Fredrickson, 2017), and repeated bouts of
11
pleasurable exercise are thought to result in positive, automatic, affective responses that might
12
bias decision-making in favor of exercise (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018). Remembered pleasure
13
may be more indicative than experienced pleasure of how an experience registers in memory and
14
informs subsequent decision making. Hedonic theory suggests that if an experience is expected
15
to be pleasant, then it will be more likely to be repeated (Ekkekakis & Dafermos, 2012).
16
In the present study, a large effect size was noted for the influence of RT condition on 24-
17
hr remembered pleasure. This finding is notable in that the effect persisted to a time point when
18
behavioral decisions regarding exercise reengagement might be made. Recall of an affect-laden
19
experience provides an effective competitor to one’s current experience, meaning that “past
20
episodes can compete with and be compared to an ongoing experience” with respect to feeling
21
state and motivation (Seligman, Railton, Baumeister, & Sripada, 2013, p. 130). This is of
22
particular importance in health-promoting behaviors where benefits are often gained far into the
23
future (i.e., are temporally remote), and what is most salient at the crucial moment of decision-
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 20
making are proximal outcomes of exercise, which often include the inconvenience and potential
1
discomfort associated with exercising (Hall & Fong, 2007), particularly among inactive and unfit
2
individuals. In contrast, focusing on positive proximal exercise outcomes, such as experienced
3
pleasure, might increase intrinsic motivation for exercise (Evans, Cooke, Murray, & Wilson,
4
2014).
5
Behavioral decisions shaped by people's predictions about how they will feel in the future
6
draw heavily upon relevant past experiences (Dunn & Laham, 2006). Yet, memory is not a
7
simple rote or reproductive system, rather memory involves complex constructive processes that
8
can be prone to error and distortion (Schacter, 2012). Research examining affective forecasting
9
indicates that people tend to be inaccurate predictors of their affective experiences, typically
10
overestimating length or the intensity of future feeling states (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003). An
11
example of this in an exercise context is the observation that, prior to an exercise session, people
12
expect to enjoy exercise less than they report actually enjoying it after completing the exercise
13
(Ruby, Dunn, Perrino, Gillis, & Viel, 2011). The tendency to overestimate how unpleasant
14
exercise will be—an affective forecasting error—is thought to undermine motivation for regular
15
physical activity (Loehr & Baldwin, 2014; Ruby et al., 2011). Interestingly, inactive individuals
16
report significantly lower expected enjoyment than active individuals but similar levels of
17
experienced enjoyment (Loehr & Baldwin, 2014). This increased discrepancy between expected
18
and experienced enjoyment points to a larger affective forecasting gap in inactive individuals
19
compared to their active counterparts, suggesting the particular importance of affective
20
manipulations for people who are trying to initiate regular exercise.
21
Ruby et al. (2011) suggest that effortful activities might seem particularly unappealing
22
because their beginnings are often genuinely unpleasant; a phenomenon they term forecasting
23
myopia. They suggest that in situations where initiating an activity is difficult or unpleasant, such
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 21
as beginning to write a paper or jogging the first mile, people may “underestimate their
1
enjoyment of the activity as a whole because their affective forecasts for the activity are
2
anchored by these unpleasant beginnings” (Ruby et al., 2011, p. 67). Nonetheless, our data
3
support a recency effect, whereby experienced affect at the end of the RT session was more
4
strongly correlated with the dependent variables of experienced, recalled, and postexercise
5
pleasure than experienced affect at the beginning of the session. A suggestion for future research
6
might be to explore RT load manipulations where the session begins and ends with a lighter load
7
(i.e., the load is progressively increased and then decreased over several sets). Finn & Miele
8
(2016) examined this effect in the context of mental effort, reporting that math tests that begin or
9
end with easier questions are preferred over tests with easier items embedded in the middle.
10
Additional ways to manipulate the slope of pleasure might warrant future research
11
attention. For example, music can positively influence affective valence during and following
12
exercise (Hutchinson et al., 2018), therefore listening to increasingly preferred music throughout
13
an exercise bout (i.e. saving a favorite track for the end) might lead to a positive slope of
14
pleasure. The use of enjoyment-focused imagery has been shown to improve pleasure during
15
aerobic exercise (Stanley & Cumming, 2010) and might be implemented strategically in order to
16
end an exercise session in a more positive feeling state.
17
Mean pleasure experienced during the exercise sessions, and at the end of each session
18
was significantly and positively related to all dependent variables for both conditions. This
19
finding supports the notion that pleasure experienced during exercise (Van Cappellen et al.,
20
2017) and at the end of an exercise session (Hargreaves, & Stych, 2013) impacts global affective
21
evaluations associated with exercise, which play an important role in adherence (Rhodes &
22
Kates, 2015).
23
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 22
The slope of pleasure experienced during the exercise sessions was significantly and
1
positively related to all dependent variables in the UP condition, but not the DOWN condition.
2
Correlations in the DOWN condition were in the expected direction, although that they were
3
weak. This might suggest that negative slopes are more salient, that is, an increasingly
4
unpleasant experience weighs heavier on retrospective evaluations that an increasingly positive
5
one. Increased sensitivity to negative experiences and events is a well-observed phenomenon
6
termed negativity bias, which is thought to serve a critical adaptive function (Rozin & Royzman,
7
2001). In addition, the relations between the slope of pleasure and the dependent variables were
8
similar, whether affective valence recorded during work or during recovery was used to calculate
9
the slope. This may indicate that, in forming a retrospective evaluation of exercise, participants
10
rely on the affective experience of the entire exercise session and are not influenced by work and
11
recovery intervals differently. However, this is difficult to conclude based on our data because
12
the work and recovery slopes were similar. Future researchers may consider testing the
13
retrospective summary evaluations of exercise sessions consisting of pleasant (or unpleasant)
14
work intervals and unpleasant (or pleasant) recovery intervals.
15
A novel finding, which warrants further research attention, was the observed relationship
16
between exercise tolerance and affective slope during the UP condition. This exploratory
17
analysis indicated that greater self-reported tolerance of exercise was counterintuitively related to
18
feeling progressively worse as RT intensity increased. However, given that preference and
19
tolerance were not related to (a) the slope of pleasure, (b) postexercise pleasure, (c) enjoyment,
20
or (d) remembered pleasure during the DOWN condition, and tolerance was related only to the
21
affective slope in the UP condition, it is possible that this relation was spurious (i.e., the only
22
significant result out of 16 correlation analyses). Future confirmatory analyses should be
23
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 23
completed to further elucidate the relations between affective responses and self-reported
1
preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity.
2
Limitations
3
This study is not without limitations. The mean BMI was 28.1 kg/m2, with 50% of the
4
sample having a BMI greater than 27.25 kg/m2. The eligibility criteria also required participants
5
to be insufficiently active (i.e., not meeting the physical activity guidelines for cardiorespiratory
6
and resistance exercise). Therefore, it is possible that these findings do not generalize to leaner or
7
more active populations. Second, we did not assess EMG amplitude in the present study. Even
8
though the training volume was consistent between conditions, it is possible that actual impact
9
on muscle activity and potential strength gains may have differed between conditions. Still, as
10
mentioned previously, prior research does not indicate the likelihood of significant differences
11
between conditions in terms of strength gains, enzyme activity, or EMG amplitude (da Silva et
12
al., 2010; Pereira et al., 2013).
13
Conclusions
14
The present study offers initial evidence that RT programming changes can successfully
15
manipulate the experienced and remembered affect associated with a single bout of exercise.
16
Further research is needed to explore the relative salience of positive and negative affective
17
slopes during exercise in the context of retrospective evaluations and, ultimately, exercise
18
behavior. Remembering an experience more positively, enjoying it more, and feeling better
19
afterwards should theoretically predict better adherence, although this has not been tested using
20
the ramp-down protocols demonstrated in this study or previously (Zenko et al. 2016). Thus, the
21
next logical step is to test this effect in a longitudinal research design to see if adherence can be
22
favorably impacted, and if this will have a meaningful impact upon health outcomes.
23
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 24
References
1
American College of Sports Medicine. (2009). American College of Sports Medicine position
2
stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in
3
Sports and Exercise, 41, 687–708. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670
4
Arent, S. M., Landers, D. M., Matt, K. S., & Etnier, J. L. (2005). Dose-response and mechanistic
5
issues in the resistance training and affect relationship. Journal of Sport & Exercise
6
Psychology, 27, 92–110. doi:10.1123/jsep.27.1.92
7
Borg, G. (1998). Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
8
Brand, R., & Ekkekakis, P. (2018). Affective-reflective theory of physical inactivity and
9
exercise: Foundations and preliminary evidence. German Journal of Exercise and Sport
10
Research, 48, 48–58. doi:10.1007/s12662-017-0477-9
11
Brewer, B. W., Manos, T. M., McDevitt, A. V., Cornelius, A. E., & Van Raalte, J. L. (2000). The
12
effect of adding lower intensity work on perceived aversiveness of exercise, Journal of
13
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 119–130. doi:10.1123/jsep.22.2.119
14
Brzycki, M. (1993). Strength testing—predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue. Journal of
15
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64, 88–90.
16
doi:10.1080/07303084.1993.10606684
17
Buckley, J. P., & Borg, G. A. (2011). Borg’s scales in strength training; from theory to practice
18
in young and older adults. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 36, 682–692.
19
doi:10.1139/h11-078
20
Cavarretta, D. J., Hall, E. E., & Bixby, W. R. (2018). The acute effects of resistance exercise on
21
affect, anxiety, and mood–practical implications for designing resistance training
22
programs. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 1–30.
23
doi:10.1080/1750984X.2018.1474941
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 25
Centers for Disease Control. (2006). Trends in Strength Training - United States, 1998-2004.
1
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55, 769–772.
2
da Silva, D. P., Curty, V. M., Areas, J. M., Souza, S. C., Hackney, A. C., & Machado, M. (2010).
3
Comparison of DeLorme with Oxford resistance training techniques: effects of training on
4
muscle damage markers. Biology of Sport, 27, 77– 81.
5
doi:10.1080/1750984X.2018.1474941
6
Dalbo, V. J., Czerepusko, J. B., Tucker, P. S., Kingsley, M. I., Moon, J. R., Young, K., &
7
Scanlan, A. T. (2015). Not sending the message: A low prevalence of strength-based
8
exercise participation in rural and regional Central Queensland. Australian Journal of Rural
9
Health, 23, 295–301. doi:10.1111/ajr.12207
10
Dunn, E. W., & Laham, S. M. (2006). Affective forecasting: A user's guide to emotional time
11
travel. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Affect in social thinking and behavior (pp. 177-193). New
12
York: Psychology Press.
13
Ekkekakis, P. (2009). The Dual-Mode Theory of affective responses to exercise in
14
metatheoretical context: I. Initial impetus, basic postulates, and philosophical framework.
15
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 73–94.
16
doi:10.1080/17509840802705920
17
Ekkekakis, P., & Dafermos, M. (2012). Exercise is a many-splendored thing, but for some it does
18
not feel so splendid: staging a resurgence of hedonistic ideas in the quest to understand
19
exercise behavior. In E. O. Acevedo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of exercise psychology (pp.
20
295–333). New York: Oxford University Press.
21
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2005). Some like it Vigorous: measuring
22
individual differences in the preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity. Journal of
23
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27(3), 350-374. doi:10.1123/jsep.27.3.350
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 26
Ekkekakis, P., Parfitt, G., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2011). The pleasure and displeasure people feel
1
when they exercise at different intensities. Sports Medicine, 41, 641-671.
2
doi:10.2165/11590680-000000000-00000
3
Epley, B. (1985). Poundage chart. Boyd Epley Workout (p.86). Lincoln, NE: Body Enterprises.
4
Evans, M. B., Cooke, L. M., Murray, R. A., & Wilson, A. E. (2014). The sooner, the better:
5
Exercise outcome proximity and intrinsic motivation. Applied Psychology: Health and
6
Well-being, 6, 347–36. doi:10.1111/aphw.12032
7
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
8
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
9
Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
10
Finn, B., & Miele, D. B. (2016). Hitting a high note on math tests: Remembered success
11
influences test preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
12
Cognition, 42, 17–38. doi:10.1037/xlm0000150
13
Focht, B. C., Garver, M. J., Cotter, J. A., Devor, S. T., Lucas, A. R., & Fairman, C. M. (2015).
14
Affective responses to acute resistance exercise performed at self-selected and imposed
15
loads in trained women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29, 3067–3074.
16
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000985
17
Greene, D. R., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2015). More Isn’t Necessarily Better: Examining the
18
Intensity – Affect – Enjoyment Relationship in the Context of Resistance Exercise. Sport,
19
Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4, 75–87. doi:10.1037/spy0000030
20
Hall, E. E., Ekkekakis, P., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2002). The affective beneficence of vigorous
21
exercise revisited. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 47–66.
22
doi:10.1348/135910702169358
23
Hall, P. A., & Fong, G. T. (2007). Temporal self-regulation theory: A model for individual
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 27
health behavior. Health Psychology Review, 1, 6-52. doi:10.1080/17437190701492437
1
Hardy, C. J., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). Not what, but how one feels: the measurement of affect
2
during exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 304–317.
3
doi:10.1123/jsep.11.3.304
4
Hargreaves, E. A., & Stych, K. (2013). Exploring the peak and end rule of past affective
5
episodes within the exercise context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 169–178.
6
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.003
7
Hutchinson, J. C., Jones, L., Vitti, S. N., Moore, A., Dalton, P. C., & O'Neil, B. J. (2018). The
8
influence of self-selected music on affect-regulated exercise intensity and remembered
9
pleasure during treadmill running. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 7, 80–92.
10
doi:10.1037/spy0000115
11
Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more
12
pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4, 401–405.
13
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x
14
Kwan, B. M., Stevens, C. J., & Bryan, A. D. (2017). What to expect when you’re exercising: An
15
experimental test of the anticipated affect–exercise relationship. Health Psychology, 36,
16
309–319. doi:10.1037%2Fhea0000453
17
Lee, H. H., Emerson, J. A., & Williams, D. M. (2016). The exercise–affect–adherence pathway:
18
an evolutionary perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1285.
19
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01285
20
Leknes, S., Brooks, J. C., Wiech, K., & Tracey, I. (2008). Pain relief as an opponent process: a
21
psychophysical investigation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 794–801.
22
doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06380.x
23
Lishner, D. A., Cooter, A. B., & Zald, D. H. (2008). Addressing measurement limitations in
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 28
affective rating scales: Development of an empirical valence scale. Cognition and
1
Emotion, 22, 180–192. doi:10.1080/02699930701319139
2
Loehr, V. G., & Baldwin, A. S. (2014). Affective forecasting error in exercise: Differences
3
between physically active and inactive individuals. Sport, Exercise, and Performance
4
Psychology, 3, 177–183. doi:10.1037/spy0000006
5
Martinez, N., Kilpatrick, M. W., Salomon, K., Jung, M. E., & Little, J. P. (2015). Affective and
6
enjoyment responses to high-intensity interval training in overweight-to-obese and
7
insufficiently active adults. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 138–149.
8
doi:10.1123/jsep.2014-0212
9
Mullen, S. P., Olsen, E. A., Phillips, S. M., Szabo, A. N., Wójcicki, T. R., Mailey, E. L. . .
10
McAuley, E. (2011). Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in older adults: Invariance
11
of the physical activity enjoyment scale (paces) across groups and time. International
12
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 103. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-8-
13
103
14
Pereira, R., Mendel, M. M. A., Schettino, L., Machado, M., & Augusto-Silva, P. (2013). Acute
15
neuromuscular responses to a resistance exercise session performed using the DeLorme and
16
Oxford techniques. Human Movement, 14, 347-352. doi:10.2478/humo-2013-0042
17
Pour, M. D., & Naghibi, M. (2015). Effects of two types of resistance training, pyramid and
18
reverse pyramid training, on IL-4, IL-6, and IFN-γ in young women. Biomedical and
19
Pharmacology Journal, 8, 915–921. doi:10.13005/bpj/842
20
Rhodes, R. E., & Kates, A. (2015). Can the affective responses to exercise predict future motives
21
and physical activity behavior? A systematic review of published evidence. Annals of
22
Behavioral Medicine, 49, 715–731. doi:10.1007/s12160-015-9704-5
23
Riebe, D., Franklin, B. A., Thompson, P. D., Garber, C. E., Whitfield, G. P., Magal, M., &
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 29
Pescatello, L. S. (2015). Updating ACSM's recommendations for exercise preparticipation
1
health screening. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 47, 2473–2479.
2
doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000664
3
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and
4
contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320.
5
doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
6
Ruby, M. B., Dunn, E. W., Perrino, A., Gillis, R., & Viel, S. (2011). The invisible benefits of
7
exercise. Health Psychology, 30, 67–74. doi:10.1037/a0021859
8
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
9
Psychology, 39, 1161-1178. doi:10.1037/h0077714
10
Schacter D. L. (2012). Constructive memory: past and future. Dialogues in Clinical
11
Neuroscience, 14(1), 7–18. PubMed ID: 22577300
12
Schoenfeld, B. J., Wilson, J. M., Lowery, R. P., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Muscular adaptations in
13
low-versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Sport
14
Science, 16, 1–10. doi:10.1080/17461391.2014.989922
15
Seligman, M. E., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future
16
or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 119–141. doi:
17
10.1177/1745691612474317
18
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal
19
dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119–145. PubMed ID: 4817611
20
Stanley, D.M., & Cumming, J. (2010). Are we having fun yet? Testing the effects of imagery use
21
on the affective and enjoyment responses to acute moderate exercise. Psychology of Sport
22
and Exercise, 11, 582–590. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.06.010
23
Swinton, P. A., Stewart, A., Agouris, I., Keogh, J. W., & Lloyd, R. (2011). A biomechanical
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 30
analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts using submaximal loads. The Journal of
1
Strength & Conditioning Research, 25, 2000–2009. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e73f87
2
Van Cappellen, P., Rice, E. L., Catalino, L. I., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2017). Positive affective
3
processes underlie positive health behaviour change. Psychology & Health, 33, 1–21.
4
doi:10.1080/08870446.2017.1320798
5
Westcott, W. L. (2012). Resistance training is medicine: Effects of strength training on health.
6
Current Sports Medicine Reports, 11, 209–216. doi:10.1249/JSR.0b013e31825dabb8
7
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social
8
Psychology, 35, 345–411. doi:10.1007/s12160-012-9362-9
9
Zauberman, G., Diehl, K., & Ariely, D. (2006). Hedonic versus informational evaluations: Task
10
dependent preferences for sequences of outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
11
19, 191–211. doi:10.1002/bdm.516
12
Zenko, Z., Ekkekakis, P., & Ariely, D. (2016). Can you have your vigorous exercise and enjoy it
13
too? Ramping intensity down increases postexercise, remembered, and forecasted pleasure.
14
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 149–159. doi:10.1123/jsep.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 31
Table 1.
1
Means (95% confidence intervals) for Dependent Variables by Condition
2
Condition
UP
DOWN
Postexercise Pleasure
1.14 (0.41, 1.86)
2.84 (2.32, 3.36)**
Enjoyment
38.38 (35.93, 40.82)
42.16 (39.65, 44.67)**
Remembered Pleasure
16.78 (5.11, 28.46)
32.34 (20.60, 44.08)*
24-hr Remembered Pleasure
5.95 (5.41, 6.48)
6.72 (6.26, 7.18)**
Note: *significant at .05 level, **significant at .005 level. Bonferroni adjustment made for
3
multiple comparisons.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 32
Table 2.
1
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients between Components of the Affective Experience and
2
Dependent Variables by Condition.
3
Postexercise
Pleasure
Enjoyment
Remembered
Pleasure
24-hr
Remembered
Pleasure
DOWN
Slope-Work
.08
.24
.27
.04
Slope-Recovery
.10
.27
.29
.06
Mean-Work
.49**
.47**
.49**
.39*
Mean-Recovery
.51**
.50**
.55**
.49**
End-Work
.52**
.56**
.60**
.41*
End-Recovery
.52**
.58**
.63**
.47**
UP
Slope-Work
.62**
.37*
.44**
.51**
Slope-Recovery
.64**
.32*
.42*
.55**
Mean-Work
.66**
.61**
.43*
.54**
Mean-Recovery
.71**
.51**
.38*
.60**
End-Work
.78**
.65**
.55**
.62**
End-Recovery
.81**
.53**
.48**
.66**
Note: Components of the affective experience are slope, mean, and end. Work refers to pleasure
4
measured during the last 10 seconds of each work interval. Recovery refers to pleasure measured
5
during the last 10 seconds of each recovery period. *significant at .05 level, **significant at .005
6
level.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 33
Table 3.
1
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients between Beginning and Ending Experienced Affect and
2
Dependent Variables by Condition.
3
Postexercise
Pleasure
Enjoyment
Remembered
Pleasure
24-hr
Remembered
Pleasure
DOWN
Affect-beginning
(75% 1-RM)
.37*
.31*
.32*
.35*
Affect-end
(55% 1-RM)
.52**
.56**
.60**
.41*
UP
Affect-beginning
(55% 1-RM)
.40*
.45**
.23
.33*
Affect-end
(75% 1-RM)
.78**
.65**
.55**
.62**
Note: *significant at .05 level, **significant at .005 level.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 34
Table 4.
1
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients between Preference for and Tolerance of Higher Intensity
2
Exercise and the Slope of Affect, Postexercise Pleasure, Enjoyment, and Remembered Pleasure.
3
Affective
Slope
Postexercise
Pleasure
Enjoyment
Remembered
Pleasure
24-hr
Remembered
Pleasure
DOWN
Preference1
.08
.02
.11
-.16
.01
Tolerance2
.04
.01
.06
-.16
.06
UP
Preference1
-.28
-.18
.06
-.02
-.18
Tolerance2
-.36*
-.09
.11
.02
-.18
4
Note: *significant at .05 level. 1Higher scores on the Preference subscale indicate preference for
5
higher exercise intensities. 2Higher scores on the Tolerance subscale indicate greater tolerance of
6
high-intensity exercise.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 35
1
2
Figure 1. Comparison between example reverse pyramid training and modified reverse pyramid
3
training protocols (RM: Repetition Maximum)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PLEASURE AND ENJOYMENT RESISTANCE TRAINING 36
1
Figure 2. Feeling Scale ratings over time
2
Note: Lines of Best Fit are shown for each of the conditions and interval types, from the beginning of the
3
exercise session (0% completed) to the end (100% completed). Dotted line: UP (work intervals); Solid
4
line: UP (recovery intervals); Small-dashed line: DOWN (work intervals); Large-dashed line: DOWN
5
(recovery intervals). Each slope was calculated by finding the line of best fit through 18 Feeling Scale
6
ratings.
7
8
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Feeling Scale Ratings
Time
