Abstract
The current study analyzed the relationship between body composition and exercise participation, along with perception toward lifetime fitness (LF) classes in college students. Thirty-eight college students (20 males and 18 females) in a regional university completed a survey pertaining an LF class and exercise participation. Additionally, height, weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and body composition [fat free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM), and body fat percentage (BF%)] were assessed. Most males (65%) and females (77%) reported personal wellbeing as their main motivation to exercise (p = 0.021) outside of their LF class, rather than it being driven by a personal achievement motivation (35% males and 23% females). Males who exercise less than twice a week were associated with having lower FFM (p = 0.041), whereas females who exercise less than twice a week were associated with lower body mass index (p = 0.004), FFM (p = 0.027), and FM (p = 0.001). Although personal wellbeing was the main motivation to exercise for both male and female students, each sex has shown unique trends in its desires to participate in an LF class. Therefore, future LF classes should consider adopting curriculums that are able to uphold personal wellbeing motivation and account for unique needs and goals males and females may have in order to promote LF class engagement.
Keywords: Physical activity, College credit, Wellbeing, Motivation, Curriculum, Class engagement.
Received: 1 June 2021 / Revised: 28 June 2021/ Accepted:19 July 2021/ Published: 5 August 2021
Contribution/ Originality
This study documents the importance of remodeling the curriculum for college fitness classes based on personal wellbeing motivation and sex-specific goals to promote engagement for reasons other than it being required and to reap the necessary benefits of regular exercise.
1. INTRODUCTION
Physical activity has been long studied as an effective treatment to reduce the prevalence of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus, and certain cancers. Despite its known benefits of physical activity, the average American spends eight hours of a day sedentary, defined as sitting or reclining while expending little energy (Campbell et al., 2018). In particular, university students are at an increased risk to begin engaging in unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking and drinking, that places them at an elevated risk of developing chronic health problems (Leenders, Sherman, & Ward, 2003), in addition to being sedentary (Owen, Healy, Matthews, & Dunstan, 2010).
The causes of obesity, often defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of ³ 30 kg/m2, are multifaceted, but it is obvious that a lack of physical activity is strongly related to obesity. Obesity will consequently lead to comorbidities such as CVD, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension (Ladabaum, Mannalithara, Myer, & Singh, 2014) . For this reason, physical activity is instrumental in weight management to prevent obesity and the development of comorbid diseases, and it is necessary for individuals to implement it in their daily lives to fight the obesity epidemic.
However, there is disparity between the known benefits of physical activity and the lack of maintaining physical activity long after college students graduate. Instead, the amount of physical activity continues to decrease over time (Adams II, Graves, & Adams, 2006) In attempt to counteract a sedentary lifestyle, 87.2% of four-year institutions in the United States offer lifetime fitness (LF) classes in their various degree programs to promote the development of healthy lifestyles and to increase the level of health-related fitness education (Strand, Egeberg, & Mozumdar, 2010). However, the efficacy of LF classes is unknown, which warrants further analysis.
LF classes are typically offered as a one-hour credit class and meet two to three times a week for a total of two to three hours per week. LF classes are designed to teach health, fitness, and recreational activities that prepare students for a lifelong experience of health and exercise habits. As previously explained (Dale & Corbin, 2000), such class approach, a combination of brief lecture and long practical applications, serves as a good model to incentivize students to engage in LF classes. However, it has been reported that students who partake in LF classes are unlikely to spend that given amount of time actively engaging in physical activities (Sallis et al., 2012), which could hinder the effectiveness of an LF class by reducing its practical nature. Considering the completion of a university-level LF class teaches lasting lessons about health to students (Adams II et al., 2006) and increases the engagement in physical activity, which improves the quality of life of students (Pucci, Reis, Rech, & Hallal, 2012), it is important to understand how the curriculum of an LF class can be better developed to bolster the motivation of students in relation to engaging in physical activity and their willingness to engage in LF class in first place.
In terms of curricular development, mixed evidence supports the notion that males and females may require a different curricular approach to engage them during an LF class (Hildebrand & Johnson, 2001). Specifically, LF classes are known to elicit positive long-lasting effects on health (Tassitano et al., 2010), and to attain these benefits, two major points must be accounted for. One of these points is that LF classes seem to be effective when students can learn new activities, improve known skills, and genuinely have fun (Leenders et al., 2003). Males seem to be more driven to seek skill-driven classes, whereas females seem to be more driven towards social cues related to physical activity (Hildebrand & Johnson, 2001). Therefore, a successful curriculum should be able to provide hands-on experience (Sparling, 2003) while still ensuring that males’ and females’ drives to participate in physical activity are accounted for and provided (Lackman, Smith, & McNeill, 2015).
Altogether, since it is known that males and females differ in their drives to participate in physical activity, the question then becomes what motivates them in first place. By identifying possible motivators, curriculums could be modified to ensure that the provided activities during the LF class are student focused. Although this study did not utilize biological samples as previously suggested (Teixeira, Carraça, Markland, Silva, & Ryan, 2012), the purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between body composition of students and their participation in exercise, along with their perception towards LF classes. The aim is to help broaden what factors could be determinant in the LF class experience that students get and further improve the development of these classes that have seen a reduction in their implementation and requirement since the early 1900s (Lackman et al., 2015).
2. METHODS
2.1. Participants
Thirty-eight college students (20 males and 18 females, age = 20.7 ± 1.2 years old) at a regional university in Texas were recruited. Advertisement for recruitment included both posted flyers in common areas and in-class verbal recruitment. Eligibility to participate included the following criteria: 1) no self-reported medical complications, 2) currently enrolled in a “Lifetime Fitness” class, and 3) non-pregnant. Enrollment was voluntary, inclusive of any demographic status, and granted upon signing the university-approved informed consent form.
2.2. Study Design and Visits
All participants attended a session at the beginning of the semester during which they were enrolled in an LF class. During the session, participants were given specific instructions regarding the protocol for the study and completed a survey, followed by an assessment of anthropometric variables (height, weight, and waist-to-hip ratio), along with body composition. After the session, participants attended their LF class and remained enrolled in it for the remaining of the semester.
2.3. Survey and Coding
Participants were asked to complete a survey with a series of questions that asked about demographic data, the course title of their LF class, the duration of exercise outside of their LF class, and the motivations for exercising in and outside of their LF class (see Appendix A). The responses to the survey were then coded into six dichotomous main themes Appendices B & C, which were then used to compare the themes against each other and against anthropometric and body composition variables. In addition, LF classes were coded into a type of class, aerobic or resistance-based Appendix C, to categorize students for one of the analyses.
2.4. Anthropometric Variables
Height (cm) and weight (kg) were assessed on a standard dual-beam balance scale with a height measuring rod (Detecto 439, Webb City, MO). In addition, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) was calculated by dividing the circumference of the waist around the navel (cm) by the measurement of the hips at the widest point (cm). Each measurement was made three times by the same researcher to ensure consistency, and an average of the three measurements was used to calculate the WHR. For accuracy, the measurements were done with a standard pressure gauged Gulick tape measure by the same research personnel.
2.5. Body Composition
Body composition [fat free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM), and body fat percentage (BF%)] were measured using a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA, Hologic, Marlborough, MA) scan. During the scan, participants rested in supine position with both legs and arms against their body. Participants were instructed to remove all kinds of metallic clothing and/or jewelry and to wear a pair of shorts and t-shirt that had no major prints that could otherwise reflect the beam used by the scanner. The DXA scan lasted for approximately 7 minutes.
2.6. Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 27.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A Chi-square test was performed to analyze each of the six dichotomous nominal themes against each other. A Point-biserial analysis was performed to analyze the continuous variables from the anthropometric measurements and the DXA scan with the dichotomous nominal themes. The level of statistical significance for both analyses was set at p ≤ 0.05.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Breakdown of Themes
There was a total of 6 main themes Table 1 and Table 2 in which participant’s responses to the qualitative survey Appendix A were coded into. Each theme was defined as a dichotomous variable with two possible responses Appendix B. The frequency of responses for each theme is represented as the number of participants and the percentage from the whole sample size of 38 participants Table 1 and Table 2.
Table-1. Frequency of classified responses for exercise related themes.
Group |
Exercise Frequency Outside of LF Class |
Exercise Duration Per Bout Outside of LF Class |
Motivation To Exercise Outside of LF Class |
|||
More than 2x/week |
Less than 2x/week |
Longer than 1 hour |
1 hour or shorter |
Personal Achievement |
Personal Wellbeing |
|
Males |
11 28.9% |
9 23.7% |
7 18.4% |
13 34.2% |
7 18.4% |
13 34.2% |
Females |
9 23.7% |
9 23.7% |
2 5.3% |
16 42.1% |
4 10.5% |
14 36.8% |
Combined |
20 52.6% |
18 47.4% |
9 23.7% |
29 76.3% |
11 28.9% |
27 71.0% |
Note: LF Class = Lifetime Fitness Class, each cell contains n = x plus percentage of total n.
Table-2. Frequency of classified responses for class related themes.
Group |
Academic Standing |
LF Class Type |
Participating In an LF Class Because It Is Required |
|||
Freshman or Sophomore |
Junior or Senior |
Aerobic |
Resistance |
Yes |
No |
|
Males |
2 5.3% |
18 47.4% |
6 15.8% |
14 36.8% |
8 21.1% |
12 31.6% |
Females |
4 10.5% |
14 36.8% |
9 23.7% |
9 23.7% |
14 36.8% |
4 10.5% |
Combined |
6 15.8% |
32 84.2% |
15 39.5% |
23 60.5% |
22 57.9% |
16 42.1% |
Note: LF Class = Lifetime Fitness Class, each cell contains n = x plus percentage of total n.
3.2. Associations between the Main Themes
From all possible two-pair comparison of the coded main themes (Appendix B), only 6 combinations met all of the assumptions required to conduct a Chi-Square test for association. No significant correlation was observed for the following 4 combinations: 1) between the LF class type that participants enrolled into and the enrollment in an LF class because of its requirement by the university (x2 = 2.423, p = 0.120), 2) the LF class type that participants enrolled into and the exercise frequency outside of LF class per week (x2 = 0.005, p = 0.944), 3) the enrollment in an LF class because of its requirement by the university and the exercise duration per bout outside of LF class (x2 = 0.145, p = 0.703), and 4) between sex and the motivation to exercise outside of LF class (x2 = 0.752, p = 0.386).
However, there was a significant correlation (x2 = 5.290, p = 0.021) between the motivation to exercise outside of LF class and the exercise frequency outside of LF class. This association is represented in Figure 1. There was also a significant correlation (x2 = 5.546, p = 0.019) between the LF class type in which participants enrolled and whether the participant was male or female. This association is represented in Figure 2.
Figure 1 . Significant association between the type of motivation a participant had and the duration of each workout outside of the LF class. Data is presented as the frequency of responses per motivation type. Total sample size = 38, p = 0.021.
Figure-2. Significant association between LF class type and sex. Data is presented as the frequency of responses per motivation type. Total sample size = 38, p = 0.019.
3.3. Associations between the Main Themes and Body Composition
A point biserial analysis was performed to compare all participants as a whole group with the 6 main themes and subsequently repeated to compare males and females as separate groups. Descriptive statistics on the continuous variables are presented in Table 3 and Table 4.
Table-3. Body composition divided by gender and combined as a group.
Group |
Age (yr) |
BMI (kg/m2) |
Waist-Hip-Ratio |
Fat Free Mass (kg) |
Males |
20.6 ± 1.0 |
24.9 ± 3.9 |
0.83 ± 0.04 |
60.9 ± 9.2 |
Females |
20.8 ± 1.4 |
23.4 ± 3.5 |
0.74 ± 0.05 |
44.1 ± 6.7 |
Combined |
20.7 ± 1.2 |
24.2 ± 3.7 |
0.78 ± 0.06 |
53.0 ± 11.7 |
Note: Data are presented as mean ± SD.
Table-4. Body fat components divided by gender and combined as a group.
Group |
Fat Mass (kg) |
Body Fat (%) |
VATmass (g) |
VATvolume (cm3) |
VATarea (cm2) |
Males |
17.9 ± 6.7 |
22.3 ± 6.4 |
287.2 ± 19.9 |
310.5 ± 21.5 |
59.6 ± 4.1 |
Females |
20.1 ± 6.4 |
30.8 ± 5.2 |
132.4 ± 16.7 |
142.9 ± 17.9 |
27.5 ± 3.5 |
Combined |
18.9 ± 6.5 |
26.3 ± 7.2 |
213.9 ± 18.1 |
231.1 ± 19.6 |
44.4 ± 3.8 |
Note: Data are presented as mean ± SD, VAT = Visceral Adipose Tissue.
3.4. Associations with All Participants Combined
There was a significant correlation (r = -0.396, p = 0.014) between exercising an hour or less per bout outside of the LF class and having a lower waist-hip-ratio. In addition, there was a significant correlation (r = -0.324, p = 0.047) between participating in an LF class because it is not required and having a lower BF%. Lastly, there was a significant correlation (r = -0.526, p = 0.001) between exercising an hour or less per bout outside of the LF class and having a lower FFM. A complete correlation matrix is presented in Table 5.
Table-5. Complete correlation matrix between the associations of the six main themes and the continuous variables related to body composition. Total sample size = 38.
| Variable | Lifetime Fitness Class Type |
Participating in a Lifetime Fitness Class Because it is Required |
Exercise Frequency Outside of LF Class |
Exercise Duration per Bout Outside of LF Class |
Academic Standing |
Motivation to Exercise Outside of LF Class |
|||
| Age | Pearson Correlation | 0.074 |
-0.016 |
-0.140 |
0.224 |
0.671** |
0.105 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.660 |
0.923 |
0.403 |
0.175 |
0.000 |
0.532 |
|||
| BMI | Pearson Correlation | 0.129 |
0.047 |
-0.303 |
-0.281 |
0.072 |
0.317 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.439 |
0.780 |
0.064 |
0.087 |
0.668 |
0.053 |
|||
| WHR | Pearson Correlation | 0.146 |
0.036 |
-0.092 |
-0.396* |
0.107 |
0.096 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.380 |
0.832 |
0.583 |
0.014 |
0.521 |
0.567 |
|||
| BF% | Pearson Correlation | -0.143 |
-0.324* |
0.070 |
0.284 |
-0.107 |
0.171 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.392 |
0.047 |
0.677 |
0.084 |
0.523 |
0.304 |
|||
| FatMass | Pearson Correlation | -0.030 |
-0.225 |
-0.089 |
0.053 |
0.069 |
0.270 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.858 |
0.174 |
0.597 |
0.750 |
0.682 |
0.102 |
|||
| FFM | Pearson Correlation | 0.222 |
0.234 |
-0.304 |
-0.526** |
0.202 |
0.033 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.180 |
0.157 |
0.063 |
0.001 |
0.224 |
0.843 |
|||
| VATmass | Pearson Correlation | 0.147 |
0.024 |
-0.059 |
-0.218 |
0.177 |
0.301 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.378 |
0.886 |
0.725 |
0.188 |
0.287 |
0.066 |
|||
| VATvol | Pearson Correlation | 0.147 |
0.025 |
-0.058 |
-0.218 |
0.177 |
0.302 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.379 |
0.884 |
0.728 |
0.189 |
0.288 |
0.065 |
|||
| VATarea | Pearson Correlation | 0.147 |
0.025 |
-0.059 |
-0.217 |
0.178 |
0.302 |
||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.379 |
0.883 |
0.727 |
0.191 |
0.286 |
0.066 |
|||
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
WHR = Waist-Hip-Ratio, BF% = Body Fat Percentage, FFM = Fat Free Mass, VAT = Visceral Adipose Tissue.
3.5. Associations Only Within Male Participants
There was a significant correlation (r = -0.460, p = 0.041) between exercising less than twice a week outside of the LF class and having a lower FFM. In addition, there was a significant correlation (r = -0.674, p = 0.001) between exercising an hour or less per bout outside of the LF class and having a lower FFM. Lastly, there was a significant correlation between participating in a LF class for reasons other than it being required and having lower visceral adipose tissue (VAT) mass (r = -0.545, p = 0.013), lower VAT volume (r = -0.544, p = 0.013), and lower VAT area (r = -0.544, p = 0.013). A complete correlation matrix is presented in Table 6.
Table-6. Complete correlation matrix between the associations of the six main themes and the continuous variables related to body composition within male participants. Total sample size = 20.
| Variable | Lifetime Fitness Class Type |
Participating in a Lifetime Fitness Class Because it is Required |
Exercise Frequency Outside of LF Class |
Exercise Duration per Bout Outside of LF Class |
Academic Standing |
Motivation to Exercise Outside of LF Class |
|
| Age | Pearson Correlation | 0.171 |
-0.020 |
0.039 |
0.123 |
0.686** |
0.288 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.471 |
0.933 |
0.869 |
0.604 |
0.001 |
0.218 |
|
| BMI | Pearson Correlation | -0.148 |
-0.108 |
-0.200 |
-0.346 |
0.037 |
0.271 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.532 |
0.650 |
0.398 |
0.135 |
0.877 |
0.248 |
|
| WHR | Pearson Correlation | 0.176 |
-0.253 |
-0.134 |
-0.275 |
0.332 |
-0.003 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.458 |
0.283 |
0.573 |
0.240 |
0.152 |
0.991 |
|
| BF% | Pearson Correlation | -0.293 |
-0.146 |
0.281 |
0.207 |
0.134 |
0.348 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.210 |
0.539 |
0.230 |
0.381 |
0.572 |
0.133 |
|
| FatMass | Pearson Correlation | -0.288 |
-0.203 |
0.152 |
-0.003 |
0.131 |
0.354 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.218 |
0.390 |
0.522 |
0.990 |
0.581 |
0.125 |
|
| FFM | Pearson Correlation | 0.052 |
-0.071 |
-0.460* |
-0.674** |
-0.005 |
-0.113 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.827 |
0.765 |
0.041 |
0.001 |
0.982 |
0.636 |
|
| VATmass | Pearson Correlation | -0.100 |
-0.545* |
0.038 |
-0.110 |
0.202 |
0.329 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.676 |
0.013 |
0.875 |
0.644 |
0.392 |
0.157 |
|
| VATvol | Pearson Correlation | -0.101 |
-0.544* |
0.039 |
-0.108 |
0.201 |
0.329 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.671 |
0.013 |
0.870 |
0.651 |
0.396 |
0.156 |
|
| VATarea | Pearson Correlation | -0.100 |
-0.544* |
0.039 |
-0.108 |
0.202 |
0.329 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.675 |
0.013 |
0.870 |
0.651 |
0.393 |
0.157 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
WHR = Waist-Hip-Ratio, BF% = Body Fat Percentage, FFM = Fat Free Mass, VAT = Visceral Adipose Tissue.
3.6. Associations Only Within Female Participants
There was a significant correlation between exercising less than twice a week outside of the LF class and having a lower body mass index (BMI) (r = -0.674, p = 0.004), lower FM (r = -0.552, p = 0.027), and lower FFM (r = -0.919, p = 0.001). There was also a significant correlation between taking an LF class for reasons other than it being required and having a lower WHR (r = -0.495, p = 0.037). A complete correlation matrix is presented in Table 7.
Table-7. Complete correlation matrix between the associations of the six main themes and the continuous variables related to body composition within female participants. Total sample size = 18.
| Variable | Lifetime Fitness Class Type |
Participating in a Lifetime Fitness Class Because it is Required |
Exercise Frequency Outside of LF Class |
Exercise Duration per Bout Outside of LF Class |
Academic Standing |
Motivation to Exercise Outside of LF Class |
||
| Age | Pearson Correlation | 0.000 |
0.041 |
-0.271 |
0.358 |
0.745** |
-0.069 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 1.000 |
0.879 |
0.310 |
0.174 |
0.001 |
0.800 |
||
| BMI | Pearson Correlation | 0.328 |
-0.123 |
-0.674** |
-0.082 |
-0.021 |
0.207 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.215 |
0.649 |
0.004 |
0.762 |
0.939 |
0.443 |
||
| WHR | Pearson Correlation | -0.152 |
-0.495* |
-0.227 |
-0.343 |
-0.259 |
-0.009 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.548 |
0.037 |
0.365 |
0.163 |
0.299 |
0.972 |
||
| BF% | Pearson Correlation | 0.315 |
-0.186 |
-0.159 |
0.015 |
-0.189 |
0.255 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.235 |
0.489 |
0.556 |
0.957 |
0.484 |
0.340 |
||
| FatMass | Pearson Correlation | 0.353 |
-0.284 |
-0.552* |
-0.024 |
0.008 |
0.164 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.180 |
0.286 |
0.027 |
0.930 |
0.977 |
0.544 |
||
| FFM | Pearson Correlation | 0.260 |
-0.211 |
-0.919** |
-0.149 |
0.204 |
-0.232 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.331 |
0.433 |
0.000 |
0.582 |
0.449 |
0.386 |
||
| VATmass | Pearson Correlation | 0.152 |
-0.011 |
-0.288 |
0.188 |
0.038 |
0.349 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.574 |
0.967 |
0.279 |
0.485 |
0.888 |
0.185 |
||
| VATvol | Pearson Correlation | 0.154 |
-0.012 |
-0.289 |
0.187 |
0.038 |
0.352 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.570 |
0.964 |
0.277 |
0.488 |
0.889 |
0.181 |
||
| VATarea | Pearson Correlation | 0.151 |
-0.011 |
-0.289 |
0.190 |
0.040 |
0.349 |
|
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.576 |
0.969 |
0.277 |
0.482 |
0.883 |
0.185 |
||
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
WHR = Waist-Hip-Ratio, BF% = Body Fat Percentage, FFM = Fat Free Mass, VAT = Visceral Adipose Tissue.
4. DISCUSSION
It is believed that motivation may play a role in whether college students choose to participate in exercise (Kilpatrick, Hebert, & Bartholomew, 2005). Although there is likely a multifactorial answer regarding the factors that promote exercise participation, developing a better understanding of what motivates students to exercise and engage in their LF classes would help strengthen the curriculum of these classes. In the current study, 57.9% of participants reported that they participated in an LF class because it was required by the university. Hence, understanding why so many students appear not to value LF classes beyond them just being required is critical. We examined the impact of such belief and how it relates to exercise, motivation, and other factors pertaining to the participation in an LF class. This study aimed to identify possible factors that can help improve the student’s attitude towards LF classes.
Descriptively, both males (34.2%) and females (42.1%) reported a higher frequency of exercising for an hour or less per bout. Surprisingly, when comparing WHR to exercise duration, with males and females combined, there was a significant correlation between exercising one hour or less and having a smaller WHR, but this statistical significance disappeared once males and females were analyzed as an independent group using a point-biserial test. Therefore, it is important that sex differences to be further explored to better understand the relationship between WHR and exercise duration and how there might be other sex differences relatable to exercise participation. For example, Lackman explained how males and females might have different motivators to engage in exercise, which may be attributed to personal, social, or other variables of wellbeing (Lackman et al., 2015), which raises the question if a similar scenario could occur with an LF class.
In contrast, as indicated in our results, the motivation to exercise outside of an LF class could be a better indicator of the frequency that students decide to workout outside of an LF class, rather than WHR. While one study reported that only 14% of undergraduate students engaged in physical activity three or more times a week (Mears et al., 2008), the current study identified a combined frequency of 52.6% males and females who exercised more than twice a week. From our study, most males (65%) and females (77%) reported personal wellbeing as their main motivation to exercise outside of their LF class, rather than it being driven by a personal achievement motivation (35% males and 23% females). This is comparable to a study that reported that most students choose a physical activity type related to “learning a new skill and to having fun” (Leenders et al., 2003), which resembles the personal wellbeing motivation code Appendix B. All in all, this could suggest that motivation is an important determinant of the frequency that students exercise.
To better understand the relationship between exercise frequency and the motivation to exercise, actual physical status, portrayed by body composition, may serve as guidance to identify how motivation might shift based on the student’s physical state and how they perceive LF classes. Specifically, a personal wellbeing motivation, comparable to an extrinsic motivation (Teixeira et al., 2012), may be the factor that determines whether a student exercises outside of a required LF class. Whether one’s motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic, it is important to develop “autonomous self-regulation” in order to optimize exercise participation and to sustain those exercise behaviors over a period of time (Teixeira et al., 2012), meaning that motivation alone may not be enough to elicit exercise participation if a student is not autonomous/independent. Further elaborating on the notion that body composition may impact motivation, the finding that FFM is associated with exercise duration suggests that motivation is imperative to ensure students spend enough time exercising, since that determined FFM. By exercising more, it will help students to attain a higher FFM, which is good for metabolic health (Hirsch et al., 2016), and to further enhance their personal wellbeing motivation to continue engaging in such exercise behavior.
Because physical status (body composition) for both males and females varies greatly, sex differences were explored to identify if a particular sex had unique traits within the six main themes. In males, motivation to exercise was highly distributed towards a personal wellbeing (65%), rather than a personal achievement (35%) motivation. When evaluating both sexes together, there was a relationship between FFM and exercise duration. Exploring males on their own, the same association was observed, which was absent in females, suggesting that male’s FFM might be indicative of their time spent exercising. Furthermore, this finding emphasizes that motivation is imperative to ensure that students spend enough time exercising, and it suggests that personal wellbeing contributes to exercise frequency for males. Further exploring males independently, the association between exercise frequency and FFM indicated that males were more driven by personal wellbeing motivation than females. Knowing that males tend to have greater VAT values (Nauli & Matin, 2019) likely explains the unique relationship between LF class requirement and VAT and how males who may not be motivated by personal wellbeing tend to have more VAT. In contrast, students who do not develop competency in playing sports in high school are likely to not voluntarily sign up for fitness classes in college (Hildebrand & Johnson, 2001), which could suggest that motivation or self-determination may cause students to be inclined to exercise less and thus perceive LF classes as just being a requirement to graduate. On the other hand, having required physical activity classes that expose students to physical activity, who would otherwise never be exposed to it, may help them develop exercise habits (Kim & Cardinal, 2019).
When evaluating females independently, it is noted that they also have a higher frequency of personal wellbeing (77.7%) as the main motivation to exercise, rather than personal achievement (22.3%). However, unlike in males, females demonstrated that BMI, FFM, and FM may be interrelated with the frequency of exercise participation, rather than their personal wellbeing motivation. The reason why the previously mentioned body composition variables (BMI, FFM, and FM) were lower in females may be because, within our sample population, female’s personal wellbeing motivation is more associated with improving mental health and relaxation rather than being physically fit. This implies that females may be motivated to engage in physical activity for the fun of it, as previously suggested (Lackman et al., 2015), but the engagement might not be enough to elicit positive body composition adaptations such as higher FFM. This concept could also be extrapolated to the reason why females who perceived participating in an LF class solely because it is required were also associated with having a higher WHR. As Lackman explained (Lackman et al., 2015), females have a considerably different drive to participate in exercise in comparison to males. When participating in a physical activity class, like an LF class, that is required, evidence has shown that engagement is reduced for females (Lackman et al., 2015). Therefore, it is inferred that majority of the personal wellbeing motivation in females was related to their interest in socializing and improving their mental health and relaxation, but it was not substantial enough to induce body composition changes and/or engagement in their LF classes. However, when evaluating males, their personal wellbeing motivation domain might be more distributed toward actual physical performance and maintenance. The results also suggest that it may help them to be engaged in their LF class, but they may not particularly be motivated to benefit physically from it.
Altogether, it is important to better understand if required LF classes outweigh the benefits of an elective class that could have a more specific curriculum to ensure all students are motivated by personal achievement and goal-setting, relatable to intrinsic motivation (Teixeira et al., 2012). With this is mind, it could be beneficial to make the LF class curriculum focused on specific health improvements and personal goals for those enrolled, rather than emphasizing the social aspect of them. This assumption is based on the notion that males and females benefit differently from the current LF classes. In essence, having an LF class with students who are intrinsically motivated could help to set class-oriented goals that will challenge students and are likely to provide a dynamic class environment that will push all students to work towards a goal as a whole group that maybe is otherwise not possible with personal wellbeing motivated students.
Something to consider would be that this study coded survey answers into the six main themes. Although this was done as objectively as possible, there is always the possibility for bias in how the survey was coded. Another limitation is that the qualitative answers to the survey were self-reported leaving the opportunity for personal bias or the desire to inflate or deflate responses by the students. The sample size in the current study, which consisted of 20 males and 18 females, may not accurately represent the entire student population. However, there was a similar ratio of males and females which made the analysis of the data feasible. An additional limitation was that the responses to the survey were a one-time point assessment. For the future studies, it is encouraged to gather pre-, mid-, and post-assessments to determine if student’s motivation or perspective towards LF classes has changed, as previously seen how students improved their attitudes toward physical activity over time (Esslinger, Grimes, & Pyle, 2016). However, all in all, the findings of this study can still be accounted for when developing a curriculum for LF classes.
Overall, when examining the role of motivation towards LF classes, it is important to account that students’ perceptions of LF classes may not be reflective of their exercise motivation. In other words, students may be motivated to exercise and still not do it, or they do not value the importance of taking an LF class and still exercise outside of it. This assumption ties back to the discrepancy between motivation and exercise participation and how the implications of personal wellbeing motivation differed between sexes. Furthermore, there was also an association between sex and LF type, aerobic- or resistance-based class, where males preferred resistance-based and females preferred aerobic-based LF classes. The difference in preference of an LF class type could warrant sex-specific programs to meet the needs of both males and females (Lackman et al., 2015) , or instructors could design curriculums suited to both sexes to ensure that, despite the LF class type that students enroll into, they all will still attain a similar benefit by the end of the semester. Despite such difference, both males and females had a high frequency of responses that fell within the personal wellbeing motivation, but that did not relate with their LF class type, which suggests that there was a mismatch between the motivation of students and their chosen class.
Summarized, regardless of both sexes sharing a similar motivation, males and females differ in their preference of an LF class type. Therefore, to develop a curriculum that can engage students and entice them to carry on exercising after the semester is over, it is essential to better understand what motivates students to exercise and how an LF class can be modified to combine both aerobic- and resistance-based modalities to ensure all students are actively engaged by it. The modifications to an LF class curriculum could also include the promotion of self-competence and skill development, especially for those who are not as motivated or interested (Hildebrand & Johnson, 2001) . A sample of 18 obese females demonstrated improved attitudes toward exercise [i.e. decreased shyness (17%), increased energy (22%) and enjoyment (22%)] after participating in a series of physical activity education sessions (Quinn, Doody, & O'Shea, 2008) , therefore emphasizing the importance of self-competence and skill development when developing a successful physical education curriculum. In addition, to encourage participation, it is important to create a curriculum that increases cardiovascular fitness in aim to promote overall health, as seen in a study that reported an increase in long-term physical fitness after requiring several credits of physical activity/aerobic classes (Mears et al., 2008) . However, despite developing a good curriculum, at the end of the day, the success of an LF class may be dependent on the instructor’s abilities to engage and provide the hands-on experience to students (Sparling, 2003), and there is more work needed to elucidate how motivation to exercise can be better stimulated in an LF class. In these terms, it would be beneficial to explore the different outcome of two LF classes that are the same type, aerobic- or resistance-based. One of the classes would have a preset curriculum, whereas the other class would implement a curriculum based on the students’ responses to their interests, motivations to exercise, among other factors that would be used to shape the class activities.
5. CONCLUSION
This study was conducted to identify what factors were associated with students’ self-reported perception of LF classes and what drives students to exercise. Although there was a high frequency of personal wellbeing motivation, it did not explain why students enrolled in an LF class, besides for it being required. However, it did demonstrate why students may engage in more or less exercise. Within that, males and females have unique trends in their desires to participate in an LF class. Therefore, future LF classes should consider adopting a curriculum that is able to uphold personal wellbeing motivation while promoting long term exercise participation. Additionally, the curriculum should account for unique needs and goals, personal achievement motivation, that males and females may have in order to promote LF class engagement.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
REFERENCES
Adams II, T. M., Graves, M. M., & Adams, H. J. (2006). The effectiveness of a university level conceptually-based health-related fitness course on health-related fitness knowledge. Physical Educator, 63(2), 104–112.
Campbell, S. D., Brosnan, B. J., Chu, A. K., Skeaff, C. M., Rehrer, N. J., Perry, T. L., & Peddie, M. C. (2018). Sedentary behavior and body weight and composition in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Sports Medicine, 48(3), 585-595. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0828-6.
Dale, D., & Corbin, C. B. (2000). Physical activity participation of high school graduates following exposure to conceptual or traditional physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(1), 61-68. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.10608881.
Esslinger, K. A., Grimes, A. R., & Pyle, E. (2016). Effects of requiring physical fitness in a lecture-based college course: Students' attitudes toward physical activity. The Physical Educator, 73(1), 161. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2016-V73-I1-5100.
Hildebrand, K. M., & Johnson, D. J. (2001). Determinants of college physical activity class enrollment: Implications for high school physical education. Physical Educator, 58(1), 51-56.
Hirsch, K. R., Smith-Ryan, A. E., Blue, M. N., Mock, M. G., Trexler, E. T., & Ondrak, K. S. (2016). Metabolic characterization of overweight and obese adults. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 44(4), 362-372. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2016.1248222.
Kilpatrick, M., Hebert, E., & Bartholomew, J. (2005). College students' motivation for physical activity: Differentiating men's and women's motives for sport participation and exercise. Journal of American College Health, 54(2), 87-94. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.54.2.87-94.
Kim, M. S., & Cardinal, B. J. (2019). Differences in university students’ motivation between a required and an elective physical activity education policy. Journal of American College Health, 67(3), 207-214. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1469501.
Lackman, J., Smith, M. L., & McNeill, E. B. (2015). Freshman college students’ reasons for enrolling in and anticipated benefits from a basic college physical education activity course. Frontiers in Public Health, 3, 11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00162.
Ladabaum, U., Mannalithara, A., Myer, P. A., & Singh, G. (2014). Obesity, abdominal obesity, physical activity, and caloric intake in US adults: 1988 to 2010. The American Journal of Medicine, 127(8), 717-727. e712. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.02.026.
Leenders, N. Y., Sherman, W. M., & Ward, P. (2003). College physical activity courses: Why do students enroll, and what are their health behaviors? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(3), 313-318. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2003.10609096.
Mears, D., Chan, J., Huang, C., Liu, Y., Lin, C., & Huang, J. (2008). The effects of physical education requirements on physical activity of young adults. American Secondary Education, 36(3), 70–83.
Nauli, A. M., & Matin, S. (2019). Why do men accumulate abdominal visceral fat? Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 1486.
Owen, N., Healy, G. N., Matthews, C. E., & Dunstan, D. W. (2010). Too much sitting: The population-health science of sedentary behavior. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 38(3), 105–113. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1097/JES.0b013e3181e373a2.
Pucci, G., Reis, R. S., Rech, C. R., & Hallal, P. C. (2012). Quality of life and physical activity among adults: Population-based study in Brazilian adults. Quality of Life Research, 21(9), 1537-1543. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0083-5.
Quinn, A., Doody, C., & O'Shea, D. (2008). The effect of a physical activity education programme on physical activity, fitness, quality of life and attitudes to exercise in obese females. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11(5), 469-472. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2007.07.011.
Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Beets, M. W., Beighle, A., Erwin, H., & Lee, S. (2012). Physical education’s role in public health: Steps forward and backward over 20 years and HOPE for the future. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport:, 83(2), 125–135. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599842.
Sparling, P. B. (2003). College physical education: An unrecognized agent of change in combating inactivity-related diseases. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 46(4), 579–587. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2003.0091.
Strand, B., Egeberg, J., & Mozumdar, A. (2010). Health-related fitness and physical activity courses in U.S. Colleges and Universities. ICHPER-SD Journal of Research, 5(2), 17-20.
Tassitano, R. M., Barros, M. V., Tenório, M. C., Bezerra, J., Florindo, A. A., & Reis, R. S. (2010). Enrollment in physical education is associated with health-related behavior among high school students. Journal of School Health, 80(3), 126-133. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00476.x.
Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 1-30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-78.
Appendix A
Survey
- Full Name: ____________________
- Classification:
- Freshman
- Sophomore
- Junior
- Senior
- Name of LF course you are taking: ____________________
- What is the primary reason you are taking an LF course?
- It is a requirement for my major.
- To motivate me to exercise more.
- Because I think it is fun.
- To help me lose weight.
- Frequency of current exercise outside of LF course:
- Less than once a week
- 1 to 2 times per week
- 3 to 4 times per week
- 5 to 6 times per week
- Everyday
- Type of current exercise outside of your Lifetime Fitness course? Select all that apply.
- Walking
- Running
- Weightlifting
- Swimming
- Playing a sport
- Hiking
- F45
- Other: ____________________
- Duration of exercise per workout:
- Less than 10 minutes
- 10-30 minutes
- 30 minutes-1 hour
- 1-2 hours
- Greater than 2 hours
- What is your primary motivation to exercise outside of your Lifetime Fitness course?
- To be healthy and physically fit.
- To feel better.
- To lose weight.
- To have fun.
- To improve mental health and personal relaxation.
- To fulfill personal goals.
- To be outside.
- No motivation to exercise.
- Other: ____________________
- What do you expect to gain from taking this Lifetime Fitness course? Select all that apply.
- Improvements in health and physical fitness
- Weight loss
- Fun exercise experience
- Improvements in mental health and personal relaxation techniques
- Improvements in personal fitness goals
- Do not expect to gain anything
- Other: ____________________
| Question | Answer | Coding |
| Is the participant’s motivation to take an LF class because it is required? | Yes | It is a requirement for my major. |
| No | Because I think it is fun. | |
| To help me lose weight | ||
| To motivate me to exercise more | ||
| To get stronger | ||
| Does the participant workout more than twice a week outside of class? | Yes | 3 to 4 times per week |
| 5 to 6 times per week | ||
| Everyday | ||
| No | Less than once a week | |
| 1 to 2 times per week | ||
| Does the participant workout for more than one hour at a time outside class? | Yes | 60-120 min |
| No | 10-30 min | |
| 30-60 min | ||
| Is the participant an underclassman? | Yes | Freshman |
| Sophomore | ||
| No | Junior | |
| Senior | ||
| Is the participant’s motivation to workout outside of class due to personal wellbeing? | Yes (Personal Wellbeing) | To be healthy and physically fit |
| To improve mental health and personal relaxation | ||
| No (Personal Achievement) | To be outside | |
| To fulfill personal goals | ||
| To help compensate eating disorders | ||
| To lose weight |
Appendix-C. Lifetime Fitness Course Coding
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Journal of Sports Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |