Understanding burnout and vitality in CrossFit: Does perceived variety explain variance above and beyond satisfaction of the basic psychological needs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived variety in exercise complements satisfaction of the basic psychological needs embedded within self determination theory (namely competence, autonomy, and relatedness; Deci & Ryan, 2002) in relation to exercise-related well-being (Sylvester et al., 2014), and ill-being (Sylvester et al., 2016). The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which perceived variety in CrossFit (a contemporary strength and conditioning program) predicts variance in subjective vitality and burnout above and beyond satisfaction of the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. CrossFit is a relatively new exercise regime that is both popular and controversial. Researchers have yet to empirically investigate psychological factors that may lead to well-being (e.g., vitality) or ill-being (e.g., burnout) outcomes in this context. Using a prospective observational design, participants (n = 97) completed measures of psychological needs satisfaction and perceived variety in CrossFit at Time 1, and measures of subjective vitality and burnout one month later (Time 2). Results of two hierarchical linear regression analyses predicting subjective vitality and burnout, showed that above and beyond the variance explained by satisfaction of the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (R2 = .23, p < .001; and R2 = .17, p < .01; respectively), perceived variety in CrossFit explained additional variance in subjective vitality (R2change= .05, p = .01) and burnout (R2change= .11; p < .001). Overall, perceived variety in CrossFit explains additional variance in subjective vitality and burnout above and beyond that explained by basic psychological needs satisfaction.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Post-Doctoral Fellowship awarded to Benjamin Sylvester. Catherine Sabiston is supported by the Canada Research Chairs program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".