Self-Selected Versus Imposed Exercise Intensities

  • Luke Haile
  • Michael GallagherJr.
  • Robert J. Robertson
Chapter

Abstract

The traditional method of prescribing the intensity of exercise is based on the scientific evidence that has shaped national PA guidelines regarding the overload training stimulus necessary to elicit health-fitness benefits. In this prescriptive paradigm, the health-fitness professional uses a GXT to determine target HR(s) or RPE(s) corresponding to a specific physiological threshold, such as the VT, or a range based on %VO2max. The individual is instructed to self-regulate exercise at the prescribed intensity. This procedure can be termed imposed exercise because the individual does not choose the intensity. This paradigm ignores an individual’s exercise intensity preference and may result in negative emotions that could decrease adherence. Allowing individuals to choose their own exercise intensity (i.e., perform self-selected exercise) has the potential to improve PA participation. In addition, research has shown that many individuals will choose to exercise at an intensity near the VT. Self-selected exercise may be an important link in the chain between the adoption and maintenance of regular PA that elicits both psychological and physiological benefits.

Keywords

Fatigue 

References

  1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. Caserta MS, Gillett PA. Older women’s feelings about exercise and their adherence to an aerobic regimen over time. Gerontologist. 1998;38:602–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox KL, Burke V, Gorely TJ, Beilin LJ, Puddey IB. Controlled comparison of retention and adherence in home- vs center-initiated exercise interventions in women ages 40–65 years: the S.W.E.A.T. study (sedentary women exercise adherence trial). Prev Med. 2003;36:17–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dishman RK, Farquhar RP, Curetone KG. Responses to preferred intensities of exertion in men differing in activity levels. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994;26:783–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekkekakis P, Petruzzello SJ. Acute aerobic exercise and affect: current status, problems and prospects regarding dose–response. Sports Med. 1999;28:337–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ekkekakis P, Lind E. Exercise does not feel the same when you are overweight: the impact of self-selected and imposed intensity on affect and exertion. Int J Obes. 2006;30:652–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haile L, Goss FL, Robertson RJ, Andreacci JL, Gallagher Jr 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;116:1755–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee JY, Jensen BE, Oberman A, Fletcher GF, Fletcher BJ, Raczynski JM. Adherence in the training levels comparison trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996;28:47–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lind E, Joens-Matre RR, Ekkekakis P. What intensity of physical activity do previously sedentary middle-aged women select? Evidence of a coherent pattern from physiological, perceptual, and affective markers. Prev Med. 2005;40:407–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lind E, Ekkekakis P, Vazou S. The affective impact of exercise intensity that slightly exceeds the preferred level: ‘pain’ for no additional ‘gain’. J Health Psychol. 2008;13:464–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Parfitt G, Rose EA, Markland D. The effect of prescribed and preferred intensity exercise on psychological affect and the influence of baseline measures of affect. J Health Psychol. 2000;5:231–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Parfitt G, Rose EA, Burgess WM. The psychological and physiological responses of sedentary individuals to prescribed and preferred intensity exercise. Br J Health Psychol. 2006;11:39–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Perri MG, Anton SD, Durning PE, Ketterson TU, Sydeman SJ, Berlant NE, Kanasky Jr WF, Newton Jr RL, Limacher MC, Martin AD. Adherence to exercise prescriptions: effects of prescribing moderate versus higher levels of intensity and frequency. Health Psychol. 2002;21:452–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rose EA, Parfitt G. A quantitative analysis and qualitative explanation of the individual differences in affective responses to prescribed and self-selected exercise intensities. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2007;29:335–54.Google Scholar
  15. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55:68–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ryan RM, Frederick CM, Lepes D, Rubio N, Sheldon KM. Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. Int J Sports Psychol. 1997;28:335–54.Google Scholar
  17. Wankel LM. The importance of enjoyment to adherence and psychological benefits from physical activity. Int J Sports Psychol. 1993;24:151–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luke Haile
    • 1
  • Michael GallagherJr.
    • 2
  • Robert J. Robertson
    • 3
  1. 1.Lock Haven University of PennsylvaniaLock HavenUSA
  2. 2.University of Central ArkansasConwayUSA
  3. 3.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations