Word of caution: Neologisms such as "affective attitudes," "affective judgments," and "anticipated affective responses" are certainly NOT "affective determinants of behavior." They are cognitions. As such, interventions to change them rely on information, not lived experiences.
If you catch yourself thinking that, to change someone's "affective determinants of behavior," all you need to do is TELL someone that she or he will feel better when they exercise, please stop. And read our chapter, in which we try to clear the confusion. doi.org/10.1093/oso/97…
Please see Kuhn: he explains that, if a paradigm is threatened by anomalies, its proponents "devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications" to avoid denouncing the paradigm leading them to crisis. If "affective determinants" are information-based, the paradigm can stand.
To change "affective determinants of behavior," you MUST develop methods to change the actual lived experience of the health behavior (e.g., exercise), making the behavior feel better. Change the social and physical environment, change the behavior itself. People have bodies too!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Kahneman and exercise science? What is the relevance of the scientific legacy of the great Israeli psychologist and Nobel laureate to the science of physical activity? It's much more than you think. A thread -- and a tribute...
Let's start from this. Imagine that you bring together the world's best physical activity epidemiologists, experts in physical activity assessment, exercise physiologists, and sports medicine physicians. You put them in a room at the @WHO headquarters and ask them to develop the next physical activity guidelines. What are they going to come up with?
In the absence of input from the behavioral sciences, the team will likely follow what I call the "common sense approach" to developing physical activity guidelines. For example, analyze the @WHO guidelines. The part at the top gives the rationale for physical activity.
In November 2020, my students and I discovered a completely fake meta-analysis, now cited more than 100 times. I notified @Hindawi but, as shown below, they have no intention to act. Each year, on the anniversary of the discovery, I re-post this thread...
This is the meta-analysis in question, supposedly summarizing RCTs examining the effects of exercise in patients with chronic renal failure. Note that the APC for "BioMed Research International" is $2,550.
Also note that @WileyGlobal bought @Hindawi in 2021 for $298 million, evidently unbothered by the fact that @Hindawi is generally not considered a reputable scientific publisher.
Steve Blair, an iconic figure in the field of exercise science over the past four decades, has passed away at the age of 84. He is leaving behind an enormous legacy. I would like to share a few thoughts...
In my mind, Blair was the last of the trio of physical activity epidemiologists that gave our field a prominent place in contemporary medicine and public health. We lost Jerry Morris on Oct 28, 2009. We lost Ralph Paffenbarger on Jul 9, 2007. We lost Steve Blair on Oct 6, 2023.
Parenthetically, if you are interested, the @ACSMNews has a wonderful 22-minute video at the YouTube link below, featuring a conversation with Blair and Paffenbarger. Highly recommended.
This sort of headlines (what you thought you knew is actually false) are becoming increasingly common. While we can debate their scientific value, one thing is for sure: they are *wonderful* training opportunities for Kinesiology / Exercise Science students. Let's take a look...
The first thing to note is that these headlines are happening against the backdrop of tremendous activity in the dementia field following the flop of Aducanumab (Aduhelm). Now, there is lecanemab, also a monoclonal antibody, with similar side-effects (brain swelling, bleeding).
So, let's look at the study in question. The MEDEX (Mindfulness, Education, and Exercise) randomized controlled trial ($3M) aimed to compare mindfulness-based stress reduction and exercise, alone or in combination, with a control intervention (health ed).
Today is the first formal step toward the culmination of a 10-year process of trying to analyze and comprehend the phenomenon of HIIT within exercise science. Paper II (from a set of 6) with @NBTiller is the first to become available online (DM for PDF).
In this paper, @NBTiller and I address the increasing prevalence of "spin" by examining 4 extraordinary claims that appeared in the HIIT research literature and subsequently made a splash as media headlines. We dissect the underlying research used as the basis for these claims.
What we find is a narrative that has run amok, becoming disconnected from the data; blatant neglect of basic methodological and statistical principles; serious errors of reporting; a striking absence of critical appraisal by journals, university press offices, and the mass media.
When you read that power calculations determined that a sample size of "8 per group" sufficed to provide 80% power, do you get a queasy feeling in your stomach? Like something ain't right? And does the paper start to smell fishy all of a sudden? Don't you get the urge to verify?
So, your stomach would be correct. Let's set aside for a moment that expecting 50% superiority from an 8-week intervention is kind-of ludicrous. Since 50% of 15 is 7.5, comparing 15±5 to 22.5±5 gives d=0.61, which requires 43 per group (not 8) to reach 80% power.
Then, you read that VO2peak changed from 22.6±8.2 to 24.7±7.9 (+2.1 ml) in one group and from 23.2±5.4 to 26.7±5.8 (+3.5 ml) in the other but "improvements in CRF" were "larger" in the latter group (with N=10 per group). Don't you get a strange feeling that those means are close?