Physiological and Psychological Evidence for the Potential of Self-Selected Exercise Intensity in Public Health

857 1. Pushy Types, Philanthropists and Compromisers. 859 2. Purposes of the Present Review . 863 3. What Exercise Intensities do People Select when ‘Left to their Own Devices’? 864 4. What is Known about the Determinants of Self-Selected Intensity? 872 5. What is Known about the Basis of Individual Differences? 874 6. Do People Select Whichever Intensity ‘Feels Right’ Anyway? 875 7. What are the Psychological Effects of Imposing an Exercise Intensity? 876 8. Running Wheels versus Treadmills: What has been Learned from the Animal Literature? 879 9. A Note on Intermittent Activity . 880 10. Conclusions and Implications for the ‘Prescription-versus-Preference’ Debate . 882 Abstract In recommending physical activity for public health, authors have advocated either an approach in which the participant is to follow a prescription developed by a professional or an approach based on the participants’ own preferences. This review explores the potential for convergence between these two approaches by examining: (i) whether the exercise intensity that participants select is within the range recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine for the development and maintenance of cardiorespiratory fitness and health; (ii) what is known about the eterminants of self-selected intensity and the factors underlying interindividual differences; and (iii) the psychological consequences of imposing a level of intensity compared with allowing participants to select their preferred level. The results indicate that, among middle-aged or older, sedentary or obese participants, or those in cardiac rehabilitation, self-selected exercise intensities are, on average, within the recommended range. However, some individuals select levels well below the recommended range and others select near-maximal levels. Most individuals apparently select intensities proximal to their ventilatory or lactate threshold, presumably because higher intensities would reduce pleasure. The factors underlying the large interindividual differences in self-selected intensity remain poorly understood. Imposed intensities lead to declines in pleasure, even when they exceed the self-selected level by a small amount. These results demonstrate the compatibility of prescription-based and preference-based REVIEW ARTICLE Sports Med 2009; 39 (10): 857-888 0112-1642/09/0010-0857/$49.95/0In recommending physical activity for public health, authors have advocated either an approach in which the participant is to follow a prescription developed by a professional or an approach based on the participants’ own preferences. This review explores the potential for convergence between these two approaches by examining: (i) whether the exercise intensity that participants select is within the range recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine for the development and maintenance of cardiorespiratory fitness and health; (ii) what is known about the eterminants of self-selected intensity and the factors underlying interindividual differences; and (iii) the psychological consequences of imposing a level of intensity compared with allowing participants to select their preferred level. The results indicate that, among middle-aged or older, sedentary or obese participants, or those in cardiac rehabilitation, self-selected exercise intensities are, on average, within the recommended range. However, some individuals select levels well below the recommended range and others select near-maximal levels. Most individuals apparently select intensities proximal to their ventilatory or lactate threshold, presumably because higher intensities would reduce pleasure. The factors underlying the large interindividual differences in self-selected intensity remain poorly understood. Imposed intensities lead to declines in pleasure, even when they exceed the self-selected level by a small amount. These results demonstrate the compatibility of prescription-based and preference-based REVIEW ARTICLE Sports Med 2009; 39 (10): 857-888 0112-1642/09/0010-0857/$49.95/0 a 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.