The Benefits of and Barriers to Strength Training Among College-age Women Amanda J. Hame and Walter R. Bixby University of Maryland

This investigation examined college-age women s perceived benefits and barriers to strength training. Women were classified as strength trainers (ST. N = 50) or non-strength trainers (NST, N = 50) on the basis of an exercise participation questionnaire. Benefits and barriers were measured using the Benefits and Barriers to Exercise (BBE) Questionnaire, which was modified to deal specifically with strength training issues. It was predicted that ST would report more benefits and less barriers when compared to their NST counterparts, while NST would report more barriers and less benefits than their ST counterparts. There were no differences between ST and NST on perceived benefits of strength training, suggesting that both are aware of the benefits ofstrength training. Of the perceived benefits, body image and health were both higher than psychological and social, which were not different. NST reported significantly higher .scores on all four barrier factors relative to their ST counterparts. For NST, time-effort was the highest of the barriers, with physical, social, and specific being slightly lower STwere virtually free from any perceived barriers to strength training. Based on these results, it appears that both ST and NST are aware of the benefits of strength training; however, NST have yet to overcome their perceived barriers to strength training. As such, future interventions should concentrate on overcoming barriers to exercise, specifically time management.

Address Correspondence To: Walter R. Bixby, Ph.D.,Department of Health, Exercise, and Spon Sciences Exercise Science Center Box 43011 Texas Tech University Lubbock TX 79409. Phone: 806 742 3371 E-maiJ: [email protected] FAX: 806 742 1688

151

152 /Journal of Sport Behavior. Vol. 28. No. 2

The American College of Sports Medicine (2000) recently highlighted the importance of strength training, along with aerobic and flexibility exercises, as key elements to a "wellrounded training program" for healthy adults. Interestingly, gender differences were not highlighted as a possible moderating factor for deriving benefits from strength training, suggesting that both men and women should participate in strength training. Additionally, various investigations have shown that women can benefit both physiologically and psychologically from a strength training program (Ebben & Jensen, 1998; Fleck, 1998; Freedson, 2000; Marble, 1997). However, despite the benefits associated with strength training, the number of women who participate in strength training programs is low (Ebben & Jensen, 1998). Strength training has several physiological benefits for women, including increasing muscular strength (Brown & Harrison, 1986; Chilibeck, Calder, Sale, & Webber, 1998; CuUinen &Caldwell, 1998; Wilmore, 1974) and lean body mass (Butts & Price, 1994; Chilibeck etal., 1998; Chilibeck, Calder, Sale, & Webber, 1996;Cullinen&Caldweil, 1998; Wilmore, 1974), and decreasing percent body fat (Butts & Price, 1994; Cullinen & Caldwell, 1998; Prabhakaran, Dowling, Branch, Swain, & Leutholtz, 1999; Wilmore, 1974) in both young and middle-aged women. In older women, strength training helps prevent sarcopenia by increasing the strength, mass, power, and quality of skeletal muscle, and it may also help prevent age-related losses in bone mineral density (Hurley & Roth, 2000). Among women of all ages, strength training also enhances the ability to carry out activities of daily living (American College of Sports Medicine, 2000). In addition to the physiological benefits of strength training, there are numerous psychological benefits for women who strength train, Among young women, strength training has been found to result in improvements in self-esteem (BrazeII-Roberts & Thomas, 19891990;Melnick&Mookerjee, 1991; Trujillo, 1983), self-concept (Brown & Harrison, 1986), emotional well-being (Tucker & Maxwell, 1992), body image (Tucker & Maxwell, 1992), bodycathexis (Mehiick & Mookeijee, 1991), and state anxiety (O'Connor, Bryant, Veltri, & Gebhardt, 1993). Further, participation in a strength training program results in improved self-concept in middle-aged women (Brown & Harrison, 1986) and improved psychological health in older women (Tsutsumi etal., 1998). Ideally, considering the number of physiological and psychological benefits associated with strength training, more women should participate in a strength training program. In recent years, strength training has reportedly been increasing in popularity among women (Ebben & Jensen, 1998; Fleck, 1998; Freedson, 2000; Marble, 1997); yet, the actual number of women who strength train is still relatively low. According to the Fitness Products Council, the number of women usingfreeweights increased from 7.4 million in 1987 to 15 million in 1995 (Marble, 1997). However, the U.S. Census Bureau (2000) estimates reported over 100 million women 18 years of

Benefits and Barriers to Strength

Training.../153

age and older in the United States in 1995, meaning that only 15% of the female population over the age of 18 were strength training. Additionally, the gender gap in sport and fitness has continued to grow with women reporting significanUy less physical activity than men (Robinson & Godbey, 1993). Surprisingly, the youngest group in the sample, college-aged women, had the largest declines in physical activity. Thus, it appears that women, particularly younger women, are not engaging in physical activity or strength training which have been shown to be beneficial across the life span. To increase women's participation in strength training, it would appear important to understand differences between those women who do strength train and those who do not. Numerous theories of behavior change suggest that perceived benefits and barriers related to the behavior play an important role in whether people engage in that behavior or not. Decision-Making theory examines the perceived benefits versus the perceived costs (Janis & Mann, 1977), social cognitive theories examine benefits and outcomes (Bandura, 1986), while the transtheoretical model (TTM) (Prochaska, DiCiemente, & Norcross, 1992) uses a decision balance concept to estimate benefits and barriers to progression to the next stage of behavior change. Marcus and colleagues (Marcus, Rakowski, & Rossi, 1992; Marcus & Owen, 1992) bave suggested that individuals in the early stages of exercise adoption perceive more barriers and fewer benefits to exercise while those in the latter stages perceive more benefits and fewer barriers to exercise. Myers and Roth (1997) examined exercise participation among college students through questionnaires that assessed their current exercise participation, their bitention to become more active in the next month, the benefits they receive or expect to receive from exercising, and the barrier? that interfere with exercise. Through these questionnaires a Benefits and Barriers to Exercise (BBE) (Myers and Roth, 1997) questionnaire was developed. The results of the investigation illustrated that perceived benefits and baniers to participation are separate constructs consisting of four benefit factors and four barrier factors. Those participants in the early stages of exercise adoption reported fewer benefits and more barriers than those in the latter stages. Additionally, a gender effect for certain benefits and barriers was observed. The women in the investigation reported significantly more psychological and body image benefits, but fewer social benefits, than men. Women also perceived more timeeffort barriers to exercise than men. However, the majority of this work has been conducted in aerobic activities and may not apply to young women and strength training. Thus, examining the differences in benefits and barriers to strength training in college-age women who regularly participate in strength training versus those who do not strength training may further our understanding of why certain women participate in strength training.

154 /Journal of Sport Behavior. Vol. 28. No. 2

Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the perceived benefits and barriers to strength training among college-age women. Specifically, women who regularly strength train and women who do not strength train completed questionnaires concerning their perceived benefits and barriers to strength training participation. It was predicted that women who currently participate in a strength training program would report more benefits of and fewer barriers to strength training than their non-strength training counterparts. Conversely, it was predicted that non-strength trainers would report more barriers to and less benefits of strength training than their strength training counterparts. It was predicted that the benefit factor with the most influence would be body image, with health having a slightly smaller influence, while time-effort and body image would be the most influential barrier factors. It is hoped that an understanding of these perceived benefits and barriers will aid in the effective design and marketing of strength training programs that will ultimately lead to increased participation by women. Methods

Participants Female participant volunteers were recruited from sororities, dormitories, and Kinesiology classes at a large University in the eastem United States. All participants completed an exercise participation questionnaire and the BBE questionnaire. Based on the exercise participation questionnaire, participants were placed into one of two groups, strength trainers (ST) or non-strength trainers (NST). In order to maximize the differences between groups, over 300 participants initially completed questioimaires. The exercise participation questiormaires were screened in a random manner until 50 participants were placed in strength and non-strength training groups. Those participants who met or exceeded, in terms of quantity, American College of Sports Medicine strength training guidelines for healthy adults (American College of Sports Medicine, 1998) were selected for the strength training group (A^=50). Participants in this group had a mean age of 19.88 + 1.22 years and strength trained an average of 2.80 + 0.90 days per week. In addition to meeting quantity recommendations, participants had to strength train at an intensity of either moderate or total fatigue to be included in the strength training group. Strength trainers also trained aerobically an average of 3.96 + 1.80 days per week for 65.30 + 48.74 minutes. Those participants who reported no strength training were placed in the non-strength training group (A^^50). Participants in this group had a mean age of 20,32 + 1.39 years and did not strength train. Non-strength trainers did participate in an average of 1.86 + 1.77 days per week of aerobic training for 33.40 + 38.10 minutes. Those participants who reported participation in strength training, but did not sufficiently meet ACSM guidelines, were eliminated from further analysis.

Benefits and Barriers

to Strength

Training.../155

Measures Exercise Participation Questionnaire. Strength and aerobic training participation were assessed with an exercise participation questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate if they participated in strength training (i.e. using free weights, machines, or both, to increase muscular strength and conditioning). If so, they were asked to state modality, frequency, number of exercises per day, sets per exercise, repetitions per set and on a scale of one to four, with one representing no fatigue, and four representing total fatigue, intensity Respondents were also asked if they participated in any aerobic training (i.e. continuous, rhythmic activity that involves the use of large muscle groups for an extended period of time). If so, they were asked to state frequency and duration. Benefits and Barriers to Exercise Questionnaire. Perceived benefits of strength training and perceived barriers to strength training were assessed using a benefits of and barriers to strength training questionnaire. The Benefits and Barriers to Exercise (BBE) Questionnaire was developed by Myers and Roth (1997). The BBE contains 48 (24 benefit and 24 barrier) items presented via a five point Likert scale ranging from (1) not important to (5) extremely important. The items were based on surveys of both exercisers and non-exercisers who were asked to list three benefits they get or would expect to get from regular exercise and three reasons why they do not exercise at all or why they do not exercise as much as they would like. A confirmatory factor analysis performed by Myers and Roth (1997) of benefits and barriers revealed an eight-factor model with four benefit and four barrier factors providing the best fit to the data. The reliability of the total benefit score for the BBE was .88 and the reliability of the total barrier score was .68. Benefit items were clustered into psychological (i.e., lift's one's spirits, improves attitude towards life), social (i.e., provides a way to meet people, builds companionship), body image (i.e., improves appearance, helps to stay in shape), and health factors (i.e., improves health, improves strength). Barrier items were clustered into time-effort (i.e., too much work, too tired), physical effects (i.e., look silly, causes sore muscles), social (i.e., friends don't encourage, don't like to exercise alone), and specific obstacles factors (i.e., no convenient place, interferes with school). Test-retest reliabilities of individual benefit and barrier subscale scores ranged from .60 to .86. Tbe benefits of and barriers to strength training questionnaire used in this study included all 24 benefit and all 24 barrier items utilized by Myers and Roth (1997), presented via the same Likert scale, but modified to address strength training issues. Participants were instructed to read each statement on the questionnaire and then circle the appropriate number to indicate the importance of that item in determining why they would or would not participate in strength training.

156 /Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 2 Procedure

Participants were given a packet consisting of a cover sheet and the questionnaires. The cover sheet explained the purpose and procedures of the study and participants were instructed to read the cover sheet before proceeding to the questiormaire. Questionnaires were administered only once and each participant completed atl questionnaires during the same session. To ensure anonymity, participants were not asked to give their names on any of the questionnaires. Each set of questionnaires was numbered and coded (ST, NST) to differentiate between participants. The questionnaires were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University. Statistical Analyses One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed separately for each of the benefit and barrier factors to determine differences between strength trainers and non-strength trainers. Where appropriate, post-hoc analysis was performed with Bonferonni corrected paired samples t-tests. Results Perceived Benefits One-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences {p > 0.05, see Table 1 for complete statistical results) between strength trainers and non-strength trainers on any of the perceived benefit factors, which included psychological, body image, social, and health. As no group differences were present in the benefits factors, responses for each factor were combined across the two groups. Further analysis found all benefit factors to be significantly different from one another {p < 0.008), except for body image and health, as depicted in Figure 1. Perceived Barriers One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between strength trainers and nonstrength trainers on all of the perceived barrier factors (p < 0.007, see Table 2 for complete statistical results), which included physical, time-effort, social, and specific. Mean item responses for each group on each barrier factor are presented in Figure 2. Further analysis found that among strength trainers, only the physical and time-effort factors were significantly different from one another (p < 0.008). For the non-strength trainers, time-effort was significantly greater tban al! remaining barrier factors (p < 0.008). Physical, social, and specific barrier factors were not different from one another. A within groups comparison of the barrier factors is depicted in Figure 3.

Benefits and Barriers to Strength

psych

H body image

m social

Training.../157

• health

Strength & Non-strength

Figure 1. Mean item response across groups for benfit factors. Items with different letters indicate significant diffrences atp&nsa\^Nomen. British Joumal of Sports Medicine. 33, 190-195. Prochaska, J.O., DiCIemente, C C , & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist. 47, 1102-1114. Robinson, J.R & Godbey, G (1993). Sport, fitness, and the gender gap. Leisure Sciences 14(4) 291-307. Sidney, K., & Jette, M. (1992). Characteristics of women performing strength training: compari son of participants and dropouts. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. J2,84-95. Trujillo, CM. (1983). The effect of weight training and running exercise intervention programs on the self-esteem of college women. International Journal of Sport Psychology 14 162-173. Tsutsumi, T, Don, B.M., Zaichkowsky, L.D., Takenaka, K., Oka, K., & Ohno, T (1998). Compari son of high and moderate intensity of strength training on mood and anxiety in older adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 1003-1011.

166 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 28. No. 2

Tucker, L.A., & Maxwell, K. (1992). Effects of weight training on the emotional well-being and body image of females: Predictors of greatest benefit. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6i5),n^-244. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000, December 20). Resident population estimates of the United States by age and sex: April 1 1990 to July 1, 1999, with short-term projection to Novem ber 1, 2000 [Online service textfile]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved April 2,2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.census.gov/ population/estimates/nation/intfile2-1 .txt Wilmore, J.H. (1974). Alterations in strength, body composition and anthropometric measure ments consequent to a 10-week weight training program. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 6 {2), 133-138. Author Note A. J. Hame is with the Dept. of Kinesiology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. W. R. Bixby, formerly at Maryland, is now with the Department of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock TX 79409. This manuscript represents work completed by A. J. Hame as an Undergraduate Honors Thesis at the University of Maryland under the direction of W. R. Bixby.