Does planning more bite-sized exercise sessions lead to more bites of brownie? An experimental test of self-control performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex behaviours like physical activity (PA) require considerable cognitive resources, such as planning and deliberation. In line with the strength model of self-control, the cognitive resources needed to engage in planning may also contribute to subsequent failures in self-control. National PA guidelines have suggested that aerobic activity could be broken up into multiple 10-minute bouts accumulated throughout the day as opposed to performing one 30-minute bout. Does the task of planning multiple bouts exert more cognitive resources than planning one longer single bout? This acute study compared the effects of planning three, 10-minute bouts of PA (Multiple Plan [MP]) compared to planning one, 30-minute bout of PA (Single Plan [SP]), on subsequent tasks requiring self-control. Sixty-five low-active university students were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions: SP (planned one 30-minute exercise bout) or MP (planned three 10-minute exercise bouts). Participants then completed the cold pressor task and were given the opportunity to eat a self-selected amount of brownies. Contrary to hypotheses, there were no statistically significant between-group differences in the duration of the cold pressor task between (MSP = 107.97 vs. MMP = 126.56, p = .29) or the amount of the brownies eaten between (MSP = 33.90 vs. MMP = 40.69, p = .37). Our study is the first to examine the potential negative effects of planning multiple versus single bouts of PA on self-control performance. Future experimental research is needed to elucidate whether planning expends enough self-regulatory resources to reduce performance on subsequent tasks requiring self-control.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".