The benefits of and barriers to strength training among college-age women.

Harne, Amanda J. ; Bixby, Walter R.

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 "well-rounded 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; Cullinen & Caldwell, 1998; Wilmore, 1974) and lean body mass (Butts & Price, 1994; Chilibeck et al., 1998; Chilibeck, Calder, Sale, & Webber, 1996; Cullinen & Caldwell, 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 (Brazell-Roberts & Thomas, 1989-1990; Melnick & Mookerjee, 1991; Trujillo, 1983), self-concept (Brown & Harrison, 1986), emotional well-being (Tucker & Maxwell, 1992), body image (Tucker & Maxwell, 1992), body-cathexis (Melnick & Mookerjee, 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 et al., 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 using free weights 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 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 significantly 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, DiClemente, & 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) have 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 intention to become more active in the next month, the benefits they receive or expect to receive from exercising, and the barriers 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 barriers 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 time-effort 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.

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 eastern 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 questionnaires. The exercise participation questionnaires 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 (N=50). Participants in this group had a mean age of 19.88 [+ or -] 1.22 years and strength trained an average of 2.80 [+ or -] 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 [+ or -] 1.80 days per week for 65.30 [+ or -] 48.74 minutes. Those participants who reported no strength training were placed in the non-strength training group (N=50). Participants in this group had a mean age of 20.32 [+ or -] 1.39 years and did not strength train. Non-strength trainers did participate in an average of 1.86 [+ or -] 1.77 days per week of aerobic training for 33.40 [+ or -] 38.10 minutes. Those participants who reported participation in strength training, but did not sufficiently meet ACSM guidelines, were eliminated from further analysis.

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.

The 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.

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 questionnaire. Questionnaires were administered only once and each participant completed all 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.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Perceived Barriers

One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between strength trainers and non-strength 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 than all 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.

[FIGURES 2-3 OMITTED]

Discussion

The purpose of this investigation was to determine young women's perceptions of benefits and barriers related to strength training. The results revealed that women strength trainers and non-strength trainers do not differ in terms of perceived psychological, body image, social, and health benefits related to strength training. It would appear that young women, whether they strength train or not, are aware of the physiological and psychological benefits associated with strength training, a result that was inconsistent with the hypothesis. This result is also in contrast to previous research, which has found that individuals in the early stages of exercise adoption perceive fewer benefits than those in the latter stages (Marcus, Rakowski, & Rossi, 1992; Marcus & Owen, 1992). It is possible that this population of young college-age women has been exposed to more information concerning the benefits of strength training than participants in previous investigations. As previous research has suggested that increasing the awareness of the benefits of exercise is an important early step to increasing future exercise behavior, the women in this investigation may be on the path to becoming more active. This trend may be evident in the amount of aerobic activity that the non-strength trainers participated in; an average of 2 days per week for 30 min per day. Based on this result, initiatives designed to encourage strength training participation among young women do not necessarily need to focus on the physiological and psychological benefits of strength training as a strategy to increase participation.

In contrast to the benefits results, women strength trainers and non-strength trainers do differ in terms of perceived physical, time-effort, social, and specific barriers related to strength training, a result that was consistent with the hypothesis. This result is also consistent with previous research, which has found that individuals in the latter stages of exercise adoption perceive fewer barriers than those in the early stages (Marcus, Rakowski, & Rossi, 1992 & Marcus & Owen, 1992). It is possible that as participants continue to participate in strength training and start to see and feel the physiological and psychological benefits associated with the activity, they begin to overcome their barriers to participation. Therefore, it would appear necessary to first illustrate the benefits associated with strength training and then teach techniques that will allow individuals to overcome their barriers.

Of the benefit factors examined in this study, body image and health were found to have the highest ratings, as evidenced by the mean item responses reported for the combined groups (Figure 1). This result suggests that both strength trainers and non-strength trainers understand the importance of strength training to enhance their body image as well as the health benefits of strength training. Furthermore, as body image and health were the only benefit factors that were not significantly different from one another, they are equally important in terms of perceived benefits of strength training. Considering the strong emphasis on a thin and fit figure for women in our society, it is not surprising that a perceived benefit of strength training among young women would be body image. In addition to the emphasis on physical appearance in our society, there is also an increasing emphasis on the role exercise can play in maintaining health, which would lend women to equally understand the health rewards of strength training participation.

While they do not differ in terms of perceived benefits, strength trainers and non-strength trainers do differ in terms of perceived barriers to strength training. As such, young women who do not strength train perceive more barriers to strength training than those who do strength train. In fact, strength trainers are virtually free of any of the barrier factors. Recall that on the questionnaire used in this study, participants were asked to indicate via a Likert scale the importance of items in determining why they would or would not participate in strength training. The Likert scale ranged from (1) not important to (5) extremely important. Mean item responses for the strength trainers on each barrier factor were all between 1.5 and 2. Taking that into consideration, it becomes evident that strength trainers in this investigation have little to no barriers to their participation in strength training.

Non-strength trainers, on the other hand, do experience barriers to strength training, specifically time-effort. The time-effort factor was found to be significantly different from all other barrier factors, and as can be seen in Figure 3, it is the highest rated barrier for non-strength trainers. This finding is consistent with that of Myers and Roth (1997), who found that pre-contemplators, or individuals who are inactive and do not intend to increase their level of physical activity, perceive more time-effort barriers to exercise than do individuals in any other stage of exercise adoption. In addition, contemplators, or individuals who are inactive but intend to become more active, perceive more time-effort barriers to exercise participation than do individuals who are in the training stage of exercise. Based on this pattern of response for the barriers questionnaire, it would appear that time-effort considerations are paramount in negotiating between academic requirements and strength training participation for non-strength trainers in a college environment. As such, initiatives to increase strength training participation among young women should focus on strategies for overcoming barriers to strength training, specifically time-effort.

In conclusion, young women strength trainers and non-strength trainers are both aware of the benefits of participating in strength training. However, differences between the two groups emerge when barriers to strength training are considered. Specifically, non-strength trainers report higher levels of physical, time-effort, social, and specific barriers to strength training. Of these, time-effort is the highest rated barrier factor. As such, initiatives to encourage young women to participate in and maintain a strength training program should focus on overcoming time-effort barriers through the use of goal setting and time management. It is hoped that continued investigation into the reasons why women do or do not participate in strength training will lead to improved strategies for encouraging women to initiate and maintain a strength training program.

Table 1.
One-way Analysis of Variance for Benefit Factors

Factor df SS F p ES Observed
 Power

Social 1 00.160 0.242 .624 .08 .078
 Error 98 64.667
Psychological 1 00.045 0.091 .764 .05 .06
 Error 98 48.014
Body-image 1 00.538 1.522 .220 .20 .231
 Error 98 34.622
Health 1 00.548 1.972 .163 .22 .285
 Error 98 27.217

Table 2.
One-way Analysis of Variance for Barrier Factors

 df SS F p ES Observed
Factor Power

Time-effort 1 23.281 35.674 .000 1.13 1.00
 Error 98 63.954
Physical 1 7.654 13.924 .000 .66 .932
 Error 98 53.872
Social 1 5.138 7.986 .006 .52 .993
 Error 98 63.044
Specific 1 7.290 14.483 .000 .69 .927
 Error 98 49.328

References

American College of Sports Medicine. (1998). Position stand: the recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 30(6), 975-991.

American College of Sports Medicine. (2000). ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (6th ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Bandura (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brazell-Roberts, J.V., & Thomas, L.E. (1989-1990). Pumping iron and self-esteem. Swimming Technique, 26 (3), 21-23.

Brown, R.D., & Harrison, J.M. (1986). The effects of a strength training program on the strength and self-concept of two female age groups. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57 (4), 315-320.

Butts, N.K, & Price, S. (1994). Effects of a 12-week weight training program on the body composition of women over 30 years of age. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8 (4), 265-269.

Chilibeck, P.D., Calder, A., Sale, D.G., & Webber, C.E. (1996). Twenty weeks of weight training increases lean tissue mass but not bone mineral mass or density in healthy, active young women. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 74, 1180-1185.

Chilibeck, P.D., Calder, A.W., Sale, D.G., & Webber, C.E. (1998). A comparison of strength and muscle mass increases during resistance training in young w omen. European Jour nal of Applied Physiology, 77, 170-175.

Cullinen, K., & Caldwell, M. (1998). Weight training increases fat-free mass and strength in untrained young women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98 (4), 414418.

Ebben, W.P. & Jensen, R.L. (1998). Strength training for women: Debunking myths that block opportunity. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 26 (5), 86-88, 91-92, 97.

Fleck, S.J. (1998). Strong evidence. Athletic Business, 22 (10), 51-52, 54, 56-57.

Freedson, P.S. (2000). Strength training for women. Idea Personal Trainer, 11 (7), 36-40, 43-44.

Hurley, B.F., & Roth, S.M. (2000). Strength training in the elderly: Effects on risk factors for age-related diseases. Sports Medicine, 30 (4), 249-268.

Janis & Mann (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.

Marble, M. (1997, April 28). Women more likely than men to be fitness enthusiasts [Electronic version]. Women's Health Weekly. Retrieved October 23, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http ://ehostvgw13.epnet.com/ ehost.asp?key=204.179.122.141_8000_572209800&site=ehost&return=y

Marcus, B.H. & Owen, N. (1992). Motivational readiness, self-efficacy, and decision making for exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11,257-261.

Marcus, B.H., Rakowski, W., & Rossi, J.S. (1992). Assessing motivational readiness and decision-making for exercise. Health Psychology, 11,257-261.

Melnick, M.J., & Mookerjee, S. (1991). Effects of advanced weight training on body-cathexis and self-esteem. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 1335-1345.

Myers, R.S., & Roth, D.L. (1997). Perceived benefits of and barriers to exercise and stage of exercise adoption in young adults. Health Psychology, 16 (3), 277-283.

O'Connor, P.J. Bryant, C.X., Veltri, J.P., & Gebhardt, S.M. (1993). State anxiety and ambulatory blood pressure following resistance exercise in females. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25 (4), 516-521.

Prabhakaran, B., Dowling, E.A., Branch, J.D., Swain, D.P., & Leutholtz, B.C. (1999). Effect of 14 weeks of resistance training on lipid profile and body fat percentage in premeno pausal women. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 190-195.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.

Robinson, J.P. & 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, 32, 84-95.

Trujillo, C.M. (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.

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, 6 (5), 338-344.

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 November 1, 2000 [Online service text file]. 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. Harne 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. Harne as an Undergraduate Honors Thesis at the University of Maryland under the direction of W. R. Bixby.

Amanda J. Harne and Walter R. Bixby

University of Maryland

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