4.5 Article

Affective responses to resistance exercise: Toward a consensus on the timing of assessments

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY OF SPORT AND EXERCISE
Volume 62, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102223

Keywords

Feeling scale; Felt arousal scale; Resistance training; Affective valence; Adherence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tailoring exercise prescriptions to improve affective responses during resistance exercise can enhance exercise adherence. This study evaluated different timing protocols for assessing affective valence and perceived activation during resistance exercise. The findings suggest that there may not be a significant post-exercise affective rebound phenomenon in resistance exercise, supporting the use of rating scales immediately after a set across different intensities and exercises.
Tailoring exercise prescriptions aimed at improving affective responses to resistance exercise may promote pleasurable experiences and thus exercise adherence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate different timing protocols for administering rating scales for the assessment of affective valence (Feeling Scale, FS) and perceived activation (Felt Arousal Scale, FAS) during resistance exercise. Thirty-three experienced male exercisers (M = 36.42 +/- 7.72 years) completed the FS and FAS at different times at three percentages of one-repetition maximum (%1RM) during two exercises (bench press, squat). No differences emerged among different assessment time points and %1RM. These findings suggest that the post-exercise affective rebound phenomenon found in aerobic exercise may not be as pronounced in resistance exercise. Therefore, the results support the use of FS and FAS in resistance exercise, administered immediately after a set, over a wide range of %1RM and exercises. Mounting evidence suggests that the use of these scales in resistance exercise could allow researchers and practitioners to evaluate affective responses that may be important for adherence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available