ABSTRACT
Recent scholarly work has emphasized the significance of achievement goals in influencing exercise motivation, yet their impact in this context remains insufficiently explored. This review systematically investigates the effects of achievement goals on diverse facets of exercise motivation, encompassing performance, achievement, and engagement. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, our study utilized the Web of Science (WoS) database, culminating in the inclusion of 21 out of 478 scrutinized papers that met all stipulated inclusion criteria. Our findings elucidate that achievement goals, specifically mastery orientation, self-orientation, and task-orientation, exert a positive influence on exercise motivation, spanning the realms of performance, engagement, and achievement. Nevertheless, an excessive emphasis on the avoidance dimensions of these goals may detrimentally impact motivation. To optimize exercise outcomes and bolster motivation, physical education instructors should implement interventions aimed at assisting students in navigating their achievement goals. Strategies encompassing pedagogical methodologies, technological support, and therapeutic approaches may prove advantageous. Future research endeavours should delve into potential variables, both environmental and personal, that could mediate the relationship between achievement goals and exercise outcomes.(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Exercise/psychology , Motivation , Achievement , Sports , Sports Medicine , Psychology, SportsABSTRACT
Introduction: The efficacy of low-intensity blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) training programs in bone metabolism remains unclear compared to low-intensity (LI) training and high-intensity (HI) training. The aim of this review was to quantitatively identify the effects of LI-BFR training on changes in bone formation markers (i.e., bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, BALP), bone resorption (i.e., C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, CTX) and bone mineral density (BMD) compared with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles based on eligibility criteria. Review Manager Version 5.4 was used for Meta-analysis. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was applied to assess the methodological quality of studies. Results: 12 articles were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 378 participants. Meta-results showed that compared with LI training, LI-BFR training induced greater increments in BALP (young adults: MD = 6.70, p < 0.001; old adults: MD = 3.94, p = 0.002), slight increments in BMD (young adults: MD = 0.05, p < 0.00001; old adults: MD = 0.01, p < 0.00001), and greater decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = -0.19, p = 0.15; old adults: MD = -0.07, p = 0.003). Compared with HI training, LI-BFR training produced smaller increments in BALP (young adults: MD = -6.87, p = 0.24; old adults: MD = -0.6, p = 0.58), similar increments in BMD (MD = -0.01, p = 0.76) and similar decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = 0, p = 0.96; old adults: MD = -0.08, p = 0.13). Although there were only two studies on walking training intervention, walking training with BFR had a better effect on bone metabolism than training without BFR. Discussion: In conclusion, LI-BFR training induces greater improvements in bone health than LI training, but is less effective than HI training. Therefore, LI-BFR training may be an effective and efficient way to improve bone health for untrained individuals, older adults, or those undergoing musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42023411837].
