Motivation for resistance training 3 versus 2 days per week in prostate cancer survivors: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We previously reported a pilot randomized controlled trial in prostate cancer survivors suggesting that resistance training (RT) 3 days/week versus 2 days/week may improve physical functioning but may also blunt psychosocial improvements. Here, we explore potential motivational explanations for this paradoxical effect. Methods: Prostate cancer survivors (N=30) were randomized to 12 weeks of supervised RT either 3 days/week (n=16) or 2 days/week (n=14). Using the theory of planned behavior, we assessed patient preference for group assignment, perceived difficulty (including specific barriers), perceived benefits (including specific benefits), perceived enjoyment, and perceived support for the RT program. Results: Patient preference for group assignment was balanced at pre-randomization and did not change after the intervention. At postintervention, there were potentially meaningful differences suggesting that the 3 days/week group perceived less support (d=-0.40; p=0.27), more difficulty (d=+0.36; p=0.34), and fewer benefits (d=-0.30; p=0.37) from the RT program. More specifically, the 3 days/week group reported less benefit for self-esteem (d=-0.92; p=0.010), physical functioning (d=-0.82; p=0.012), fatigue (d=-0.73; p=0.041), cardiovascular endurance (d=-0.67; p=0.058), and happiness (d=-0.64; p=0.066). Moreover, there were potentially meaningful differences suggesting the 3 days/week group perceived more barriers to the RT program including feeling sick (d=+0.42; p=0.27), traveling to/from the fitness center (d=+0.36; p=0.32), and other medical problems (d=+0.25; p=0.49). Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest that perceptions of less support, fewer benefits, and more barriers may explain why prostate cancer survivors experienced fewer psychosocial benefits from a 3rd day/week of RT. These motivational explanations should be investigated in larger trials. Acknowledgments: Kerry S. Courneya 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".