Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Improves Exercise Tolerance in Sedentary Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the efficacy of an acute intervention derived from acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for increasing high-intensity constant work rate (CWR) cycle exercise tolerance in a group of low-active women age 18-45 yr. The secondary goals were to examine whether ACT would reduce perceived effort and improve in-task affect during exercise and increase postexercise enjoyment. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 39 women were randomized to either the experimental (using ACT-based cognitive techniques and listening to music during the CWR exercise tests) or a control group (listening to music during the CWR exercise tests). Before (CWR-1) and after the intervention (CWR-2), participants completed a CWR cycle exercise test at 80% of maximal incremental work rate (Wmax) until volitional exhaustion. RESULTS: On average, ACT (n = 18) and control (n = 21) groups were matched for age, body mass index, weekly leisure activity scores, and Wmax (all P > 0.05). Exercise tolerance time (ETT) increased by 15% from CWR-1 to CWR-2 for the ACT group (392.05 ± 146.4 vs 459.39 ± 209.3 s; mean ± SD) and decreased by 8% (384.71 ± 120.1 vs 353.86 ± 127.9 s) for the control group (P = 0.008). RPE were lower (e.g., by 1.5 Borg 6-20 scale units at 55% of ETT, P ≤ 0.01) during CWR-2 in the ACT versus that in the control group. By contrast, ACT had no effect on in-task affect. Exercise enjoyment was higher after CWR-2 in the ACT group versus that in the control group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An acute ACT intervention increased high-intensity ETT and postexercise enjoyment and reduced perceived effort in low-active women. Further investigations of ACT as an effective intervention for enhancing the established health benefits of high-intensity exercise need to be provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".