4.4 Article

The exercise paradox: An interactional model for a clearer conceptualization of exercise addiction

期刊

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 199-208

出版社

AKADEMIAI KIADO ZRT
DOI: 10.1556/JBA.2.2013.4.2

关键词

dependence; exercise abuse; research; review; theory; transformation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Exercise addiction receives substantial attention in the field of behavioral addictions. It is a unique form of addiction because in contrast to other addictive disorders it is carried out with major physical-effort and high energy expenditure. Methods: A critical literature review was performed. Results: The literature evaluation shows that most published accounts report the levels of risk for exercise addiction rather than actual cases or morbidities. The inconsistent prevalence of exercise addiction, ranging from 0.3% to 77.0%, reported in the literature may be ascribed to incomplete conceptual models for the morbidity. Current explanations of exercise addiction may suggest that the disorder is progressive from healthy to unhealthy exercise pattern. This approach drives research into the wrong direction. Discussion: An interactional model is offered accounting for the adoption, maintenance, and transformation of exercise behavior. The here proposed model has an idiosyncratic black-box containing the antecedents and characteristics that are unique to the individual, which cannot be researched via the nomothetic approach. Subjective aspects in the black-box interact with stressful life events that force the person to cope. The range of coping may be wide. Escape into exercise depends on personal (subjective) and situational (objective) factors, but the subjective components are inaccessible for a priori scholastic scrutiny. It is our view that currently only this dual interactional model may account for the fact that exercise addiction emerges suddenly and only in a few individuals from among those at high risk, estimated to be around 3.0% of the exercising population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据