1
Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline
April 2017
Volume 20 Number 2
Editor-in-Chief
Official Research Journal of
Tommy
the American
Boone, PhD,
Society
MBA
of
Review
Board
Exercise
Physiologists
Todd Astorino, PhD
Julien Baker,
ISSN 1097-9751
PhD
Steve Brock, PhD
Lance Dalleck, PhD
Eric Goulet, PhD
Robert Gotshall, PhD
Alexander Hutchison, PhD
M. Knight-Maloney, PhD
Len Kravitz, PhD
James Laskin, PhD
Yit Aun Lim, PhD
Lonnie Lowery, PhD
Derek Marks, PhD
Cristine Mermier, PhD
Robert Robergs, PhD
Chantal Vella, PhD
Dale Wagner, PhD
Frank Wyatt, PhD
Ben Zhou, PhD
Official Research Journal
of the American Society of
Exercise Physiologists
ISSN 1097-9751
JEPonline
Do Acute Feelings of Pleasure/Displeasure During
Resistance Training Represent Session Affect in
Obese Women?
R. C. Alves, L. Follador, S. S. Ferreira, V. F. Andrade, E. D. Garcia,
G. Da Silva
Centro de Pesquisa em Fisiologia do Exercício – FISIOEX
Departamento de Educação Física, Universidade Federal Paraná
(UFPR)
ABSTRACT
Alves RC, Follador L, Ferreira SS, Andrade VF, Garcia ED, Da
Silva G. Do Acute Feelings of Pleasure/Displeasure During
Resistance Training Represent Session Affect in Obese Women?
JEPonline 2017;20(2):1-9. The purpose of the present study was to
compare acute feelings of pleasure/displeasure (FPD) during a
resistance training session at self-selected intensity to the overall
affective responses (i.e., Session-Affect). Fourteen obese women
(age: 39.2 ± 11.1 yrs; height: 160.4 ± 5.9 cm; BM: 87.4 ± 5.8 kg;
BMI: 33.6 ± 1.2 kg·m-2) performed a resistance training session at a
self-selected intensity consisting of 3 sets x 10 reps of 5 exercises:
bench press, leg extension, front lat pulldown, barbell curl, and leg
curl. Subjects reported FPD at the completion of each set. Also, at
30 min after the end of the training session, subjects were asked to
rate Session-Affect. ANOVA was used to compare FPD between
exercises and a paired t test was used to compare mean values
between FPD and Session-Affect. The results indicate that the
barbell curl was the least pleasant exercise compared to the bench
press, leg extension, and front lat pulldown. Feelings of pleasure
were also lower for the leg curl in comparison to the leg extension
exercise. Mean values between acute FPD and Session-Affect were
similar. We conclude that different resistance training exercises
performed at a self-selected intensity elicit varied pleasant feelings.
In addition, Session-Affect values are capable of reflecting mean
values of FPD assessed during the training session.
Key Words: Affect, Obesity, Self Selected, Weight Training
2
INTRODUCTION
Physical inactivity is associated with a range of chronic diseases and early death. A
conservative estimate in healthcare cost internationally from physical inactivity is $53.8 billion
worldwide in 2013, of which $31.2 billion was paid by the public sector, $12.9 billion by the
private sector, and $9.7 billion by households (4). Obesity is highly linked to lack of physical
exercise and has become a major public health problem worldwide. According to a last
update by the World Health Organization (22), 38% of the men and 40% of the women 18 yrs
of age and over worldwide are overweight. Common health consequences of overweight and
obesity are cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidaemia, type 2 diabetes, and cancer (11,15,20).
The current guidelines for physical exercise recommend a total of 150 min·wk-1 of moderateintensity continuous exercise or 75 min·wk-1 of vigorous-intensity continuous exercise (8).
However, most of the adult population is inactive and do not comply with the guidelines.
Clearly, different modes of physical exercise are needed to increase physical activity time.
One modality of exercise that has generated interest in the overweight or obesity populations
is resistance training. Besides the increase in strength, there are several health-related
outcomes from participating in a resistance training program such as the improvement in
body composition (17), blood glucose levels (3), insulin sensitivity (18), and blood pressure
(16). While resistance training is not as effective as aerobic exercise in decreasing body fat, it
can increase muscle mass that may increase 24-hr energy expenditure (5). In this sense, as
part of a physical activity program, resistance training may be helpful in managing body
weight. However, research has not adequately considered the affective valences of such
modality.
One specific affective valence that needs attention during resistance training is feelings of
pleasure/displeasure (FPD). Pleasure and displeasure are part of “core affect”, a simple
primitive feeling, i.e., without much cognitive processing, most apparent in mood and
emotion, and always accessible to consciousness (7). The measurement of FPD during
exercise may help monitor and regulate exercise intensity as research suggests there is an
association between perceived exertion and ratings of pleasure/displeasure experienced
while exercising. In this sense, the dual-mode theory (6) proposes that low-intensity exercise
(below ventilatory threshold) elicits positive affective responses, while high-intensity exercise
elicits negative affective responses. This model suggests that when exercise intensity is
above ventilatory threshold, physiological homeostasis is perturbed with an increase in
ventilation, muscular contraction, and blood lactate concentration. Also, the interoceptive
cues predominate over cognitive processes, thus increasing perceived exertion and feelings
of unpleasantness.
The primary use of FPD has been the in-task assessment of affective responses during
continuous exercise and, in particular, the previous research assessing in-task FPD proposes
that affective responses can predict adherence during continuous exercise (12,13,21).
Recently, some attention has been directed towards the study of the overall exercise affective
experience (i.e., Session-Affect). For example, Haile et al. (9) found that there is a mismatch
between the session and acute exercise values for affective responses during a 20-min
cycling trial at a self-selected intensity in young male subjects. According to the authors, the
presence of this mismatch could provide valuable information regarding affective memory of
3
the previous exercise and possibly work to better understand the subjects’ future exercise
performance and adherence.
Given the interest in the health benefits of resistance training, research investigating affective
responses to it seems appropriate. Therefore, in this study we compared the acute FPD
responses to session affective responses during a resistance training session at self-selected
intensity in sedentary obese women.
METHODS
Subjects
Fourteen sedentary obese women (Table 1) volunteered to participate in this study. Each
subject completed the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q), the Medical
History Questionnaire, and a written informed consent prior to participation. The inclusion
criteria were: (a) pre-menopausal state; (b) nonsmoking habits; and (c) moderate obesity
(BMI ≥30 kg·m-2 to ≤34 kg·m-2). The exclusion criteria were: (a) the presence of joint,
neurological, cardiovascular or respiratory limitations that would not influence the mechanics
of walking and/or resistance training; (b) the use of pharmacological drugs that may influence
the subjects’ response to exercise; (c) self-reported change in habits related to exercise
training in the 6 months preceding the date of assessment; and (d) previous diagnosis of
polycystic ovary.
Procedures
Experimental Design
This was a cross-sectional study with a pre-experimental design. Resistance training was the
independent variable, while feelings of pleasure/displeasure (FPD) were the dependent
variables. All subjects completed three meetings: (a) anthropometric measurement; (b) a
familiarization session; and (c) a resistance training session that consisted of 5 exercises at
self-selected intensity for the assessment of FPD during and 30 min after the end of the
session. All procedures were approved by the university institutional review board.
Self-Selected Intensity
The self-selected intensity for the resistance training exercises was characterized as the load
the subject felt comfortable during the execution of the exercise. Instructions to the subjects
regarding the preferred load were in accordance with Ratamess and colleagues (14), which
were: ‘‘How much weight would you select for this exercise if you were completing a 10-rep
set in your workout?’’ Each subject was given 3 opportunities to select the appropriate
weight. After this procedure, each subject performed 3 sets of 10 reps with rest intervals
between sets of 1 to 2 min.
Familiarization Session
A familiarization session was conducted to explain the procedures that would be used during
the resistance training session, such as the sequence of the exercises and the use of the
Feeling Scale (10) to report FPD. The correct execution of the exercises (bench press, leg
extension, front lat pulldown, barbell curl, and leg curl) was demonstrated by an experienced
fitness instructor. Each subject performed the exercises in the same sequence as presented
with a minimum weight. The subjects were also told how to rate their FPD.
4
Feeling Scale
Feelings of pleasure/displeasure (FPD) were assessed with the use of the Feeling Scale (10),
which consisted of a 11-point bipolar scale that ranged from +5 (“very good”) to -5 (“very
bad”) with anchors at all odd integers and at the zero point (neutral). FPD were assessed
between sets for each exercise during the resistance training session. The Feeling Scale was
shown to each subject who was then asked: “How are you feeling right now?” At the end of
the training session, each subject was seated comfortably in a chair in an area adjacent to
the gym room. After a 30-min rest, each subject’s Session-Affect was assessed. Each subject
was asked: “How much pleasure/displeasure did you experience during this session of
resistance training?”
Resistance Training Session
After a 5-min warm-up on a treadmill at a constant speed of 1.11 m·s-1 the subjects started
the resistance training session. All subjects performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions at a selfselected intensity of the following exercises: bench press, leg extension, front lat pulldown,
leg curl, and barbell curl. The concentric and eccentric phases were completed in a 2:2 sec
format. The rest interval between sets was 1 min. An experienced fitness instructor was
present during all the sessions to make sure each exercise was performed with proper form.
Feelings of pleasure/displeasure (FPD) were assessed at the end of each set. Total duration
of the training session was ~45 min. Session-Affect was recorded 30 min after the end of the
training session.
Statistical Analyses
All statistics were performed on SPSS 18.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) for Windows. Significance
was set at P<0.05 for all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were conducted for all
measures. All results were reported as mean ± SD. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test
the normality of the distribution. A repeated-measures one-way analysis of variance (one-way
ANOVA) was applied to analyze the FPD responses between the exercises. Bonferroni’s post
hoc tests were performed in the event of a significant main effect. A paired t test was used to
compare the FPD responses during the training session with session affective responses
(i.e., Session-Affect).
RESULTS
Table 1. Descriptive Data of the Subjects.
Subjects
Age (yrs)
Height (cm)
*
M ± DP*
31 ± 10.5
165 ± 7.6
Body mass (kg)
87 ± 16.3
BMI (kg·m-2)
33 ± 1.1
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
5
The subjects’ affective responses were positive for all exercises during the resistance training
session. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences (F = 7.364, P<0.001) between the
exercises. Bonferroni’s post hoc indicated that the lowest values of pleasure were for the
barbell curl compared to the bench press, leg extension, and front lat pulldown exercises.
Feelings of pleasure were also lower for the leg curl in comparison to the leg extension
exercise (Figure 1).
Figure 1. FPD during the Resistance Exercises. *Significant difference from bench press, leg
extension and front lat pulldown. #Significant difference between leg extension and leg curl.
There was no significant difference between the mean values of FPD during the resistance
training session and the Session-Affect, suggesting that both measures reflect the training
session.
Figure 2. Mean Values for FPD during the Resistance Training Session and Session-Affect.
6
Figure 3 shows a comparison between mean values for FPD during the training session and
Session-Affect for each subject.
Figure 3. Mean Values for FPD during the Resistance Training Session and Session-Affect for
Each Subject.
DISCUSSION
The present investigation examined FPD during and after a session of resistance training
performed at a self-selected intensity in a group of inactive obese women. The findings
indicate that all the exercises resulted in pleasant feelings. However, the barbell curl exercise
was less pleasant compared to the bench press, leg extension, and front lat pulldown. Also,
the leg curl was less pleasant than the leg extension (Figure 1). These findings corroborate
the study by Alves et al. (2), where the barbell curl and leg curl exercises elicited less
pleasant feelings in comparison to the other exercises in the training routine. In another study
by Alves and colleagues (1), the resistance training session performed at 70% 1RM elicited
less pleasant feelings only during the leg curl exercise.
The low pleasant values during the barbell curl and the leg curl exercises in the present study
are possibly a result of the order in which the exercises were performed. Both exercises were
positioned at the end of the training session and, therefore, the subjects presented a certain
amount of accumulated fatigue. In fact, Simão et al. (19) reported that their subjects
performed less repetitions during the last exercises of the training session, independent of
the muscle groups involved in the action. The suggested hypothesis was that the subjects
perceived the last exercises as being more difficult due to the afferent information from the
already fatigued muscles from the previous exercises.
No doubt the higher the perception of exertion, the lower is the feeling of pleasure. This fact
would explain the findings of the present study. Mean values for FPD during the resistance
training session were not significantly different from the overall affective feelings (i.e., the
7
Session-Affect). In this sense, the assessment of affective feelings during a resistance
training session can be performed both by the mean values reported for each exercise and
the Session-Affect reported after the end of the training session. Thus, the measurement of
FPD during each exercise allows the quantification of affect for each exercise. The
measurement of the Session-Affect allows for the quantification of FPD independently of the
variations observed during the training session and the determination whether the session
was pleasant or unpleasant (Figure 3).
Limitations of this Study
The present study has some methodological limitations that should be addressed. The
specificity and the small size of our sample make it difficult to extrapolate the results to the
general population and individuals with different characteristics. Therefore, new studies
should be conducted with the purpose of reinforcing our findings and elucidating the
mechanisms of FPD during resistance training. Future research should employ a larger
sample size with different populations in order to fully exploit the mechanisms responsible for
the regulation of affective feelings during resistance training.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that different resistance training exercises performed at a self-selected intensity
produced varied FPD in a sample of unfit and obese women. In addition, Session-Affect
values are capable of reflecting mean values of FPD assessed during the training session.
Address for correspondence: Ragami Chaves Alves, Federal University Department,
Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil, zip code: 80020-010, Email: [email protected]
REFERENCES
1. Alves RC, Ferreira SS, Benites ML, Krinski K, Follador L, da Silva SG. Exercícios com
pesos sobre as respostas afetivas e perceptuais. Rev Bras Med do Esporte. 2015;
21:177-182.
2. Alves RC, Prestes J, Souza Junior TP, Follador L, Lopes WA, da Silva SG. Acute
effect of weight training at a self-selected intensity on affective responses in obese
adolescents. J Exerc Physiol online. 2014;17:66-73.
3. Colberg SR, Sigal RJ, Fernhall B, Regensteiner JG, Blissmer BJ, Rubin RR, et al.
Exercise and type 2 diabetes: The American College of Sports Medicine and the
American Diabetes Association: Joint position statement. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:
e147-e167.
4. Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, Van
Mechelen W, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: A global analysis of
major non-communicable diseases for the Lancet Physical Activity Series 2 Executive
Committee. Lancet. 2016;6736:1-14.
8
5. Donnelly JE, Blair SN, Jakicic JM, Manore MM, Rankin JW, Smith, BK. Appropriate
physical activity intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain
for adults. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2009;41:459-471.
6. Ekkekakis P. Pleasure and displeasure from the body: Perspectives from exercise.
Cogn Emot. 2003;17:213-239.
7. Ekkekakis P. Affect, mood and emotion. In: Measurement in Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 2012;321-332.
8. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee I-M, et al.
Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory,
musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults. Med Sci Sport
Exerc. 2011;43:1334-1359.
9. Haile L, Goss FL, Robertson RJ, Andreacci JL, Gallagher M, Nagle EF. Session
perceived exertion and affective responses to self-selected and imposed cycle
exercise of the same intensity in young men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113:17551765.
10. Hardy CJ, Rejeski WJ. Not what, but how one feels: The measurement of affect during
exercise. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1989;304-317.
11. Hu FB, Willett WC, Li T, Stampfer MJ, Colditz G, Manson JE. Adiposity as compared
with physical activity in predicting mortality among women. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:
2694-2703.
12. Kilpatrick M, Kraemer R, Bartholomew J, Acevedo E, Jarreau D. Affective responses
to exercise are dependent on intensity rather than total work. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2007;39:1417-1422.
13. Parfitt G, Rose E, Burgess WM. The psychological and physiological responses of
sedentary individuals to prescribed and preferred intensity exercise. Br J Health
Psychol. 2006;11:39-53.
14. Ratamess NA, Faigenbaum AD, Hoffman JR, Kang J. Self-selected resistance training
intensity in healthy women: The influence of a personal trainer. J Strength Cond Res.
2008;22:103-111.
15. Redinger RN. The pathophysiology of obesity and its clinical manifestations.
Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY). 2007;3:856-863.
16. Ribeiro AS, Tomeleri CM, Souza MF, Pina FLC, Schoenfeld BJ, Nascimento MA, et al.
Effect of resistance training on C-reactive protein, blood glucose and lipid profile in
older women with differing levels of RT experience. Age (Omaha). 2015;37:109.
17. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly
9
resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2016;414:1-10.
18. Shaibi G, Cruz M, Ball G, Weigensberg M, Salem G, Crespo N, et al. Effects of
resistance training on insulin sensitivity in overweight Latino adolescents males. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:1208-1215.
19. Simão R, Farinatti PDTV, Polito MD, Maior AS, Fleck SJ. Influence of exercise order
on the number of repetitions performed and perceived exertion during resistance
exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:152-156.
20. Venables MC, Jeukendrup AE. Physical inactivity and obesity: Links with insulin
resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2009;25:18-23.
21. Williams DM, Dunsiger S, Ciccolo JT, Lewis BA, Albrecht AE, Marcus BH. Acute
affective response to a moderate-intensity exercise stimulus predicts physical activity
participation 6 and 12 months later. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2008;9:231-245. 2
22. World Health Organization. Global status report on obesity and overweight 2016.
WHO. 2016.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in JEPonline are those of the authors and are not attributable to
JEPonline, the editorial staff or the ASEP organization.