Panteleimon (
Oct 20, 2019 4 tweets 2 min read Read on X
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. Image
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. Image
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! Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Panteleimon ("Paddy") Ekkekakis

Panteleimon (

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Ekkekakis

Mar 28
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...
Image
Image
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?Image
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. Image
Read 29 tweets
Nov 8, 2023
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... Image
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.

doi.org/10.1155/2017/7…
Image
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.

newsroom.wiley.com/press-releases…
Image
Read 17 tweets
Oct 8, 2023
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... Image
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. Image
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.


Image
Read 23 tweets
Dec 14, 2022
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... Image
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). Image
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).

doi.org/10.1001/jama.2… Image
Read 25 tweets
Aug 10, 2022
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).

doi.org/10.1123/kr.202… Image
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. Image
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.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 10, 2022
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?
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(