Sport And Exercise Psychology: A Critical Introduction

7 “continuance” (i.e., the person continues to exercise even when confronted by physical
or psychological impediments, such as injury).

In addition to these diagnostic criteria, another distinction is required when analysing
exercise dependence. Briefly, Hausenblas and Downs (2002) indicated that if obligatory
exercise is performed as an end in itself, then it is classified as “primary” exercise
dependence. On the other hand, if it is undertaken in order to control body composition or
shape, as happens in the case of eating disorders (see Blumenthal, O’Toole and Chang,
1984), then it is regarded as “secondary” exercise dependence.
Having explained the nature and types of exercise dependence, we should now return
to an important conceptual issue in this field. To what extent is the obligatory exerciser
suffering from an addiction? Superficially, the concept of exercise addiction seems
plausible for several reasons. First, as we learned earlier in this chapter, chronic exercise
is associated with changes in the brain levels of neurotransmitters like norepinephrine and
serotonin—substances which are known to influence people’s moods. Thus exercise
addiction may have a neurobiological basis. In addition, just like people who are addicted
to drugs of any kind, exercise addicts may develop a tolerance for their habit. In this case,
“tolerance” is indicated when people require longer, more intense and more frequent
physical “work-outs” in order to maintain the same levels of satisfaction with their
exercise. However, as Aidman and Woollard (2003) pointed out, this tolerance criterion
may apply only to the later stages of exercise dependence, which makes it unsuitable as a
diagnostic indicator. However, this objection does not apply to the third criterion of
exercise addiction—namely, the existence of post-deprivation withdrawal symptoms such
as increased fatigue, depression, anger and irritability (Sachs, 1981). Remarkably, recent
research suggests that these symptoms can be detected in athletes after only one day
without exercise. Thus Aidman and Woollard (2003) discovered that club runners who
abstained from their daily training run experienced significantly more withdrawal
symptoms than did runners who maintained their normal training regime. This finding is
somewhat counter-intuitive because it suggests that committed runners who have an extra
“rest day” may end up feeling more tired than those who exercise every day! This
addiction criterion of withdrawal symptoms is by no means clear-cut, however. For
example, cocaine dependence does not always yield withdrawal symptoms (ibid.). In
summary, doubts exist about the validity of classifying compulsive exercise behaviour as
an addiction.
In passing, it should be noted that some critics are sceptical of the value of debating
the addictive status of exercise dependence. For example, Morgan (2000) suggested that
it does not really matter whether a runner is said to be “addicted” to, “dependent” on, or
“abusing” exercise. What does matter, he claimed, is that when such runners are
prevented from exercising, they usually experience significant distress—a phenomenon
which “exercise evangelicals” (ibid., p. 304) have been slow to acknowledge. And so, we
come to the question of whether compulsive exercise behaviour is ultimately helpful or
harmful. This question is considered in Box 8.3.

Box 8.3 Thinking critically about...whether compulsive exercise

behaviour is helpful or harmful

Sport and exercise psychology: A critical introduction 228