Does Exercise Addiction Exist Among Individuals Engaged in Team-Based Exercise? A Position Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exercise addiction is a term used to describe dysfunctional exercise behavior characterized by the classic symptoms of addictions, which eventually result in physical, psychological, or social harm to the affected individual. While well over 1000 peer-reviewed papers on problematic exercise have been published, very few studies have explored the conceptual differences between team-based and individual-based exercise, and no previous study has critically addressed this issue. The rationale for this distinction is that team-based exercise is typically organized and scheduled by others with little or no control over its timing by the individual team member. On the contrary, individual-based exercise can be self-scheduled. Consequently, more (total) control over its timing facilitates the satisfaction of craving-induced urges characterized by an addiction. It is posited that exercise addicts, in general, are “lone wolves” in the context of their addiction. Therefore, being addicted to exercise in team sports is only possible if the individual resorts to additional individually-controlled exercise above and beyond team-based training. To support this position, the present paper briefly reviews the few studies conducted in this area and examines how their results match the diagnostic interpretation of “addiction.” The present position paper highlights that “control” over the addictive behavior, in this case, exercise, is an important marker in the potential for the risk of exercise addiction. Therefore, future studies should consider that team-based exercise assigns little control to the individual. However, the extent to which additional individual-based exercise occurs and poses a risk of addiction within team exercises merits further research attention.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".