Apples and oranges in the basket of a clinical model for exercise addiction: Rebuttal to Brevers et al. (2022).

This note is a reply to Brevers et al.'s (2022) the commentary. We first explain that the commentary's title is in discord with the theoretical implications of the Expanded Interactional Model of Exercise Addiction (EIMEA; Dinardi et al., 2021). Subsequently, we argue that in contrast to Brevers et al.'s arguments, exercise volume or intensive physical exercise is not even mentioned in the revised EIMEA. Most importantly, we point out that the commentary's reference to assessment scales of exercise addiction is irrelevant, because the EIMEA is intended for idiographic clinical cases rather than nomothetic research. Furthermore, we discuss how the ELMEA cannot account for secondary exercise addiction and motivational incentives due to its individual-specific orientation. Finally, we conclude our reply by highlighting that Brevers et al.'s commentary seems to revolve around nomothetic research assessing a certain level of 'risk' of exercise addiction, while the EIMEA accounts for specific clinically dysfunctional cases presented in the limited number of case studies published in the literature.

The expanded interactional model of exercise addiction.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cited in over 100 articles, the interactional model of exercise addiction (Egorov & Szabo, 2013) forms the theoretical foundation of many studies on the risk of exercise addiction. Still, the inclusion of previously omitted determinants could make it more useful. Therefore, this review presents the expanded version of the original model. METHOD: We added 'self-concept' as another determinant in the 'personal factors' domain and 'attractive alternatives' to the 'situational factors' domain. Further, we doubled the reasons for exercise in the 'incentives for exercise domain.' Last, we added a new domain, the 'exercise-related stressors,' to illustrate that exercise itself might be a source of stress. RESULTS: The expanded model is more inclusive and accounts for a greater combination of interactions playing roles in exercise addiction. Overlooking the eventuality that stress resulting from exercise might also fuel the dysfunction was a significant omission from the original model, rectified in the current update. Finally, the new expansions make the model more applicable to competitive situations too. CONCLUSION: The expanded interactional model of exercise addiction is more comprehensive than its original version. It also accounts for the exercise or sport-related stress as possible fuel in addictive exercise behavior.