Adherence to exercise and affective responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Postmenopausal women, despite their increased cardiovascular risk, do not meet physical activity recommendations. Outdoor exercise bouts induce more positive affective responses than the same indoor exercise. Outdoor training could therefore increase exercise adherence. This study aims to compare the long-term effects of outdoor and indoor training on affective outcomes and adherence to exercise training in postmenopausal women. METHODS: In a 12-week randomized trial, 23 healthy (body mass index, 22-29 kg/m) postmenopausal women (aged 52-69 y) were assigned to either outdoor training or indoor training and performed three weekly 1-hour sessions of identical aerobic and resistance training. Adherence, affective valence (Feeling Scale), affective states (Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory), and rating of perceived exertion were measured during exercise sessions, whereas depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory) and physical activity level (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly) were assessed before and after the intervention. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of training, exercise-induced changes in affective valence were higher for the outdoor training group (P ≤ 0.05). A significant group-by-time interaction was found for postexercise tranquility (P ≤ 0.01), with a significant increase outdoors and a significant decrease indoors (both P ≤ 0.05). A time effect was revealed for positive engagement, which decreased across time in the indoor group (P ≤ 0.05). Adherence to training (97% vs 91%) was significantly higher outdoors (P ≤ 0.01). Between baseline and week 12, depression symptoms decreased and physical activity level increased only for the outdoor group (P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Outdoor training enhances affective responses to exercise and leads to greater exercise adherence than indoor training in postmenopausal women.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".