The iReAct study – A biopsychosocial analysis of the individual response to physical activity

Abstract

BackgroundPhysical activity is a substantial promoter for health and well-being. Yet, while an increasing number of studies shows that the responsiveness to physical activity is highly individual, most studies focus this issue from only one perspective and neglect other contributing aspects. In reference to a biopsychosocial framework, the goal of our study is to examine how physically inactive individuals respond to two distinct standardized endurance trainings on various levels. Based on an assessment of activity- and health-related biographical experiences across the life course, our mixed-method study analyzes the responsiveness to physical activity in the form of a transdisciplinary approach, considering physiological, epigenetic, motivational, affective, and body image-related aspects.MethodsParticipants are randomly assigned to two different training programs (High Intensity Interval Training vs. Moderate Intensity Continuous Training) for six weeks. After this first training period, participants switch training modes according to a two-period sequential-training-intervention (STI) design and train for another six weeks. In order to analyse baseline characteristics as well as acute and adaptive biopsychosocial responses, three extensive mixed-methods diagnostic blocks take place at the beginning (t0) of the study and after the first (t1) and the second (t2) training period resulting in a net follow-up time of 15 weeks. The study is divided into five modules in order to cover a wide array of perspectives.DiscussionThe study's transdisciplinary mixed-method design allows to interlace a multitude of subjective and objective data and therefore to draw an integrated picture of the biopsychosocial efficacy of two distinct physical activity programs. The results of our study can be expected to contribute to the development and design of individualised training programs for the promotion of physical activity.Trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register on 12 June 2019 (DRKS00017446).

Factors Predicting the Physical Activity Behavior based on Theory of Reasoned Action among Chronic Low Back Pain of the Patients Referring to Comprehensive Health Service Centers in the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran

“…The results of the present study are completely in the line of theoretical assumptions of the theory of reasoned action (Adams & Shambaugh, 2019).On the other hand, Attitude means the overall feeling of like or dislike toward any given PA behavior (Ajzen, 2011;Thiel et al, 2020). In Carvalho's study, people who did not have a good attitude toward physical activity prevented their physical activity (Carvalho et al, 2017).…”

Individual cardiovascular responsiveness to work-matched exercise within the moderate- and severe-intensity domains

“…The iReAct (Individual Response to Physical Activity) study was an interdisciplinary research project that investigated the physiological, affective, and cognitive responses to HIIT and MICT at the individual level (Thiel et al 2020 ). Information pertaining the current study is presented below.…”

“…Information pertaining the current study is presented below. Further details on the clinical trial can be found elsewhere (Thiel et al 2020 ). In the present manuscript, we analyzed the effects of the first training period only.…”

Responders and non‐responders to aerobic exercise training: beyond the evaluation of

“…The current study was part of a large research project named iReAct (Individual Response to Physical Activity). The iRe-Act study was an interdisciplinary research project which investigated the physiological, affective, and cognitive responses to HIIT and MICT at the individual level (Thiel et al, 2020). We used a two-period sequential training intervention, where previously sedentary healthy participants were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of HIIT followed by 6 weeks of MICT exercise training or vice-versa.…”

“…It should be noted that even though the phase of the menstrual cycle status within which testing occurred was not controlled in this study, this was not a major consideration in our design as there is compelling evidence showing that the phase of the menstrual cycle does not seem to have an effect on submaximal and maximal outcomes, as well as on microvascular measures (Mattu et al, 2020;Williams et al, 2020). Further inclusion criteria may be found elsewhere (Thiel et al, 2020).…”