“…Furthermore, engagement in regular physical activity needs to be considered. As previously shown, only subjects with regular physical activity as compared to those with irregular or no activity increased their activity under stress (Lutz et al, 2010). In our study, chronic stress scores and total activity counts did not differ with respect to habitual PA, making it unlikely that this factor is a major confounder of our findings.…”
Fatigue is one of the most commonly reported complaints in the general population. As physical activity (PA) has been shown to have beneficial effects, we hypothesized that everyday life PA improves fatigue. Thirty-three healthy students (21 women, 22.8 ± 3.3 years, 21.7 ± 2.3 kg/m(2)) completed two ambulatory assessment periods. During five days at the beginning of the semester (control condition) and five days during final examination preparation (examination condition), participants repeatedly reported on general fatigue (awakening, 10 am, 2 pm, 6 pm and 9 pm) by means of an electronic diary, collected saliva samples for the assessment of cortisol and α-amylase immediately after providing information on fatigue and wore a triaxial accelerometer to continuously record PA. Self-perceived chronic stress was assessed as a moderator. Using hierarchical linear modeling, including PA, condition (control vs. examination), sex and chronic stress as predictors, PA level during the 15 min prior to data entry did not predict momentary fatigue level. Furthermore, there was no effect of condition. However, a significant cross-level interaction of perceived chronic stress with PA was observed. In fact, the (negative) relationship between PA and fatigue was stronger in those participants with less chronic stress. Neither cortisol nor α-amylase was significantly related to physical activity or fatigue. Our study showed an immediate short-term buffering effect of everyday life PA on general fatigue, but only when experiencing lower chronic stress. There seems to be no short-term benefit of PA in the face of higher chronic stress. These findings highlight the importance of considering chronic stress when evaluating the effectiveness of PA interventions in different target populations, in particular among chronically stressed and fatigued subjects.
“…Furthermore, engagement in regular physical activity needs to be considered. As previously shown, only subjects with regular physical activity as compared to those with irregular or no activity increased their activity under stress (Lutz et al, 2010). In our study, chronic stress scores and total activity counts did not differ with respect to habitual PA, making it unlikely that this factor is a major confounder of our findings.…”
Fatigue is one of the most commonly reported complaints in the general population. As physical activity (PA) has been shown to have beneficial effects, we hypothesized that everyday life PA improves fatigue. Thirty-three healthy students (21 women, 22.8 ± 3.3 years, 21.7 ± 2.3 kg/m(2)) completed two ambulatory assessment periods. During five days at the beginning of the semester (control condition) and five days during final examination preparation (examination condition), participants repeatedly reported on general fatigue (awakening, 10 am, 2 pm, 6 pm and 9 pm) by means of an electronic diary, collected saliva samples for the assessment of cortisol and α-amylase immediately after providing information on fatigue and wore a triaxial accelerometer to continuously record PA. Self-perceived chronic stress was assessed as a moderator. Using hierarchical linear modeling, including PA, condition (control vs. examination), sex and chronic stress as predictors, PA level during the 15 min prior to data entry did not predict momentary fatigue level. Furthermore, there was no effect of condition. However, a significant cross-level interaction of perceived chronic stress with PA was observed. In fact, the (negative) relationship between PA and fatigue was stronger in those participants with less chronic stress. Neither cortisol nor α-amylase was significantly related to physical activity or fatigue. Our study showed an immediate short-term buffering effect of everyday life PA on general fatigue, but only when experiencing lower chronic stress. There seems to be no short-term benefit of PA in the face of higher chronic stress. These findings highlight the importance of considering chronic stress when evaluating the effectiveness of PA interventions in different target populations, in particular among chronically stressed and fatigued subjects.
“…Efforts should be taken to ascertain factors that may lead to resiliency in the face of stress, such as exercise stage-of-change (Lutz et al, 2010), serotonin (5-HTTLPR) genotypes (Markus & De Raedt, 2011), and utilization of exercise to cope with stress, a factor associated with detached emotional processing (Masters & Ogles, 1998). Finally, there was no control condition or comparison with other modes of exercise, such as aerobic exercise at a matched level of intensity or caloric expenditure.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those reporting higher levels of chronic stress recover from fatigue and soreness more slowly in a four-day period after resistance exercise and experience a delayed rebound of perceived energy (Stults-Kolehmainen, Bartholomew, & Sinha, 2014). In noncontrolled settings, Lutz, Stults-Kolehmainen, and Bartholomew (2010) found that experiences of life event stress over a six-week period were related to lower workout session ratings of perceived exertion (RPE). This same study reported that dampened PA was related to higher stress for subjects newly adopting exercise.…”
“…For example, it could be proposed that an individual's health status actually has causal effects on cumulative adversity and leisure-time PA: the combination of high stress and a great number of cardiovascular problems could impede effort to be physically active. Such a model seems feasible given longitudinal evidence of an effect of stress on PA along with findings that numerous factors moderate this relationship (Lutz et al, 2010). A study with a longitudinal design would better explain the direction and sequence of effects of stress, exercise and health.…”
Both cumulative adversity, an individual's lifetime exposure to stressors, and insufficient exercise are associated with poor health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether exercise buffers the association of cumulative adverse life events (CALE) with health in a community-wide sample of healthy adults (ages 18–50 years; women: n 219, 29.5 ± 9.2 years; men: n = 176, 29.4 ± 8.7 years, mean ± standard deviation). Participants underwent the Cumulative Adversity Interview, which divides life events into three subsets: major life events (MLE), recent life events (RLE) and traumatic experiences (TLE). These individuals also completed the Cornell Medical Index and a short assessment for moderate or greater intensity exercise behavior, modified from the Nurses’ Health Study. Results indicated that higher CALE was associated with greater total health problems (r = 0.431, p<0.001). Interactions between stress and exercise were not apparent for RLE and TLE. However, at low levels of MLE, greater exercise was related to fewer total, physical, cardiovascular and psychological health problems (p value<0.05). Conversely, at high levels of MLE, the benefits of exercise appear to be absent. Three-way interactions were observed between sex, exercise and stress. Increased levels of exercise were related to better physical health in men, at all levels of CALE. Only women who reported both low levels of CALE and high levels of exercise had more favorable physical health outcomes. A similar pattern of results emerged for RLE. Together, these data suggest that increased exercise is related to better health, but these effects may vary by cumulative stress exposure and sex.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.