Body Image Relates to Exercise-Induced Antinociception and Mood Changes in Young Adults: A Randomized Longitudinal Exercise Intervention.

Background: An important motivation for adolescents and young adults to engage in aerobic exercise (AE) is to improve fitness, body composition and physical appearance. These parameters have an impact on bodily perception as conceptualized by the 'body image' (BI) construct. AE is known to have positive effects on pain perception, mood, and body image (BI). However, no study has hitherto investigated their interrelationship within one study. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group (IG, n = 16, 6 months of AE) or a passive control group (CG, n = 10). Frankfurt Body-Concept Scales (FKKS), Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), State and Trait Anxiety Inventory, warmth and heat pain thresholds (WPT, HPT), pain tolerance, and graded exercise test data from baseline (T0) and the end of the intervention (T6) were analyzed using a paired t-test (p < 0.05). Results: A significant increase in the BI dimension 'physical efficacy' was identified from T0 to T6, which correlated positively with PANAS Positive Affect Scale and HPT. Conclusion: Data in young adults undergoing AE indicate that changes in the BI sub-category 'physical efficacy' are closely linked with changes in positive affect and antinociception. These novel findings suggest that BI plays a role in antinociception and positive affect.

Body Image in Athletes and Nonathletes With Low Back Pain: Avoidance-Endurance-Related Subgroups and Sports Status Play a Role.

CONTEXT: Low back pain (LBP) is a serious health problem, both in the general population as well as in athletes. Research has shown that psychosocial aspects, such as dysfunctional pain responses, play a significant role in the chronification of LBP. Recent research supports the relevance of the multidisciplinary concept of body image in the interpretation of LBP. OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences in 2 psychosocial aspects, body image and pain responses, between athletes and nonathletes with LBP. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: The questionnaires were distributed in the course of LBP treatment. PARTICIPANTS: Data from 163 athletes (mean age = 28.69 [9.6] y) and 75 nonathletes (mean age = 39.34 [12.63] y) were collected. INTERVENTIONS: Data were collected by questionnaires assessing body image, pain behavior, training activity, and LBP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To examine group differences between athletes and nonathletes regarding body image and pain behavior, the authors performed 2-way analyses of variance with Bonferroni post hoc tests. RESULTS: The results showed (1) a significant main effect regarding pain responses and body image, showing that participants with eustress endurance or adaptive pain behavior revealed a more positive body image in both groups compared with participants with distress endurance or fear-avoidance behavior, and (2) a significant main effect for the factor group in the body image dimension of physical efficacy, indicating a more positive body image for athletes. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that considering multiple risk factors for LBP, such as body image and dysfunctional pain behavior, as well as subgrouping, might be valuable for research and for broadening therapy options.

Psychological pain responses in athletes and non-athletes with low back pain: Avoidance and endurance matter.

BACKGROUND: Dysfunctional psychological pain responses, namely fear-avoidance (FAR), including catastrophizing and helplessness, as well as endurance-related responses (ER), including thought suppression and overactivity, have been shown to be risk factors for persistent low back pain (LBP). Literature suggests that athletes may differ from non-athletes regarding psychological responses to pain. OBJECTIVES: This study set out to compare FAR and ER between athletes and non-athletes with LBP. It was hypothesized that athletes would report less frequent FAR and more frequent ER, and that both FAR and ER are associated with LBP intensity and disability. METHODS: The 173 athletes and 93 non-athletes cross-sectionally reported how frequently they employ FAR and ER on the Avoidance-Endurance Questionnaire (AEQ), as well as LBP intensity and disability on the Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire (CPGS). MANOVA was applied to compare FAR and ER between athletes and non-athletes. Hierarchical multiple linear regression models were used to determine the unique associations between FAR and ER with LBP intensity and disability. RESULTS: Athletes reported lower frequencies of behavioural avoidance than non-athletes, but no other FAR variables differed between the groups. Frequencies of ER did not differ between athletes and non-athletes. Regression analysis indicated substantial associations of FAR with LBP intensity, as well as of FAR and ER with disability in athletes and non-athletes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that athletes and non-athletes with LBP differ regarding behavioural avoidance, but overall, differences regarding pain responses are marginal. FAR and ER are both reported in athletes and non-athletes and contribute to disability in both groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Athletes train to endure pain in the course of athletic socialization, at least in the context of exercise. However, there is sparsity of knowledge about psychological pain responses in athletes with low back pain and whether they differ from those in non-athletes. The results of this comparative study suggest that endurance responses are more frequent than avoidance responses among athletes and non-athletes alike. However, both types of responses seem relevant to clinical pain management in athletes as well as non-athletes.

Depression and suicidal ideation in high-performance athletes suffering from low back pain: The role of stress and pain-related thought suppression.

BACKGROUND: Depression and suicidal ideation are important health problems in athletes suffering from pain. Dysfunctional pain cognitions, that is, pain-related thought suppression (PTS), may play an important role in their aetiology. Thought suppression was shown to increase depressive mood, particularly in highly stressed individuals. This cross-sectional study examines the relationship between PTS and stress on depression and suicidal ideation in athletes with pain. METHODS: A total of 159 athletes with non-specific low back pain completed a set of questionnaires to measure PTS, depression and stress. Participants were split into groups with high and low stress, and high and low PTS. Two-way ANOVA calculated main effects for PTS, stress and a PTS*stress interaction, with depressive symptoms as dependent. Subsequently, distribution tests were calculated, investigating if the presence of clinically relevant depression and suicidal ideation is dependent of conditions of high/low PTS and stress. RESULTS: A main effect of stress demonstrated higher depression scores in highly stressed athletes. Further, a significant PTS*stress interaction showed elevated depression scores in athletes with high PTS and high stress. Distribution analysis revealed positive associations between PTS, stress and depression, with depression being most frequent among athletes with high PTS and high stress. Suicidal ideation was not significantly associated with PTS and only weakly correlated with stress. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that PTS is the most common pain response in athletes with pain. The results indicate a higher prevalence of depression and elevated depressive symptoms in athletes experiencing high stress, seemingly more pronounced when highly engaging in PTS. SIGNIFICANCE: This study contributes to the understanding of depression in athletes with pain, suggesting stress and pain-related thought suppression to increase symptoms and prevalence of depression. As athletes often experience acute or chronic pain, understanding the impact of pain cognitions on health outcomes is an important step in the optimization of treatments.

Examining the Presence of Back Pain in Competitive Athletes: A Focus on Stress and Recovery.

CONTEXT: Explanatory approaches for back pain (BP) in athletes focus on biomechanical factors while neglecting psychological perspectives. Psychological factors have gained importance in the prediction of injuries in athletes and BP in the general population, with stress and recovery emerging as central risk factors. However, scarce evidence exists regarding the role of these aspects for the prevalent burden of BP. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between stress and recovery parameters and the presence of BP. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: The questionnaires were distributed after the training sessions. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 345 competitive athletes (mean age = 18.31 y [SD = 5.40]) were investigated. The classification of the athletes' competitive status was based on performance level. INTERVENTIONS: Data were collected using questionnaires for the assessment of stress, recovery, and BP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The authors performed a multiple logistic regression to obtain odds ratios for stress and recovery parameters with regard to the outcome variable BP status. RESULTS: For stress, the dimension "overall stress" (odds ratio = 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.59; P = .001) and the scale "physical complaints" (odds ratio = 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.25; P = .001) of the general version of the Recovery-Stress Questionnaire resulted to be significantly associated with BP. None of the recovery-related scales displayed a statistically significant relationship with BP. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this study imply a modest association between stress and the presence of BP in competitive athletes. Practitioners may take these findings into account regarding the conception of training and for monitoring purposes.

Body image is more negative in patients with chronic low back pain than in patients with subacute low back pain and healthy controls.

Background and aims Body image as an increasing research field has been integrated into pain research within the last years. However, research on cognitive-affective dimensions of body image dependent on different pain groups like acute/subacute and chronic pain patients, and healthy controls is still lacking. Therefore, this study aims to explore three dimensions of body image, namely self-acceptance, physical efficacy, and health in patients with low back pain and healthy controls. The present study is the first to distinguish between patients with low back pain in different stages of pain with regard to the concept of body image. In a second step we investigated the differences in exercise frequency between the three groups. Methods Seventy seven patients (53.2% female) suffering from low back pain and 57 healthy controls (42.1% female) filled in a battery of questionnaires in terms of body image, pain parameters and exercise frequency. Results Main results indicate first that patients suffering from chronic low back pain revealed a more negative body image in all three body image-dimensions than healthy controls. Second, patients suffering from subacute pain revealed a more negative body image of physical efficacy compared to the healthy controls. Conclusions Our results suggest that body image is relevant for the treatment of low back pain, because patients suffering from low back pain revealed a more negative body image than healthy controls. Implications To investigate the cognitive-affective dimensions of body image in different patient groups suffering from low back pain seems to be an important aspect for future research to improve therapy options and prevention of low back pain. Future research should also focus on improvements or on positive aspects of body image in patients with low back pain.

Stress and risk for depression in competitive athletes suffering from back pain - Do age and gender matter?

Back pain (BP), a prominent problem for competitive athletes, is a primary reason for limitations in athletic performance and daily life restrictions. As studies on the relationship between psychological variables and BP in athletes are scarce, the aim of this study was to investigate stress and depression in competitive athletes with BP. In a cross-sectional design, data of 154 competitive athletes (51% female; Mage = 18.81 years, SDage = 5.05 years) were collected, assessing Performance stress, Socio-emotional stress, Risk for depression and Psychological well-being and the two BP parameters BP Intensity and Disability. Two multiple linear regressions were conducted to predict (1) BP Intensity and (2) Disability from Performance stress, Socio-emotional stress, Risk for depression and Psychological well-being. Multiple linear regressions demonstrated that Performance stress (ß = .21, p = .01) was the only significant predictor of BP Intensity (F1,142 = 6.68, p = .01, R2 = .05), whilst Risk for depression (ß = .24, p = .01) was the only significant predictor of Disability (F1,142 = 8.46, p = .01, R2 = .06). Neither gender nor age explained a significant amount of variance in the models. Study results showed that, as in the general population, the variables stress and depression are related to BP in competitive athletes. In particular, BP intensity was found to be associated with stress and BP-related disability was associated with depression, whereas age and gender showed no association with the BP parameters. A longitudinal investigation is warranted to determine the direction of the observed relationships.

Recovery-stress patterns and low back pain: Differences in pain intensity and disability.

BACKGROUND: Recovery describes a restoring process influencing the health conditions of individuals but a potential link to low back pain (LBP) has not been scrutinized so far. Psychological strategies to deal with LBP have been considered within the biopsychosocial approach but substantial evidence regarding specific psychological underpinnings remains elusive. The current study aimed to compare individuals with different recovery-stress patterns (i.e. specific combinations of recovery/stress) regarding their pain and disability in the lower back. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 265 physically active individuals with non-specific LBP were collected via standardized questionnaires. The participants engaged in prescribed exercise therapy provided by a healthcare professional owing to their back burden. A k-means cluster analysis identified three clusters. RESULTS: Cluster 1 entailed individuals with high recovery and low stress values, Cluster 2 represented participants with medium scores on both dimensions and Cluster 3 included participants with low recovery and high stress values. The statistical analyses for pain intensity using analyses of covariance indicated significantly higher values for Cluster 3 compared with Clusters 1 and 2 for worst pain intensity (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively) and mean pain intensity (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). The disability comparisons using non-parametric tests showed significantly higher LBP-related disability in Cluster 3 than Cluster 1 on two disability measures. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate an association between detrimental recovery-stress patterns and LBP. Examining the role of recovery has innovative practical relevance for LBP prevention and rehabilitation through the implementation of approaches to enhance recovery in relevant programmes.

Exercise motivation and nonspecific back pain: A comparison of patients and nonpatients.

OBJECTIVE: Motivation is a key variable to consider during exercise or exercise therapy of individuals with back pain. Based on organismic integration theory, this study aims to improve the understanding of exercise motivation in patients and nonpatients by evaluating the relationships between typical motivational profiles and personal characteristics, therapy parameters and pain related variables. METHOD: One hundred nine women and 145 men with back pain (mean age 33.3 years; 31.9% currently under the care of a physician) involved in some kind of exercise for current nonspecific back pain voluntarily participated in this study. An adapted version of the Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire was used to measure exercise motivation. Furthermore, data on pain, disability status, level of sport activity, body concept, and the type of treatment or exercise were gathered. RESULTS: Autonomous forms of regulation were most prevalent among subjects. Of 4 motivational profiles found, 2 showed a positive pattern (29.1% highly motivated individuals, 21.7% autonomously convinced individuals), and 2 showed a more negative pattern (19.7% controlled convinced individuals, 29.5% less motivated individuals). Relationships between profiles and age, body concept, involvement in sport competition, and type of exercise were found. CONCLUSIONS: The different motivational profiles respectively reveal specific practical relevance. In particular, the controlled convinced pattern is supposed to be more maladaptive than all other profiles. The insights provided by this study supports the development of motivation-oriented treatments based on the assessment of individuals' motivational profiles. (PsycINFO Database Record

Parameters of low back pain chronicity among athletes: Associations with physical and mental stress.

OBJECTIVE: In the general population, physical and mental stress factors are linked to chronic low back pain (LBP). The aim of the present study was to examine this association among athletes. DESIGN: Longitudinal study with a six-month interval between measurements. SETTING: Questionnaires were filled out at home, either in paper-pencil version or online. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two male and 57 female athletes (N = 139, MAge = 32.24) who exercise on a competitive (n = 102) or recreational level (n = 37), with a weekly training volume of at least 3 h. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At T0, stress parameters were assessed via the Recovery-Stress Questionnaire (RESTQ-Basic-48) and the Screening Scale of the Trier Inventory for the Assessment of Chronic Stress (TICS-SSCS). At T0 and T1, different chronification indicators were measured. Based on these assessments, the sample was split into a chronification and no-chronification group. RESULTS: ANCOVAs were used to conduct group comparisons with regard to stress levels. The chronification groups showed higher stress values for all chronification indicators. For the variables Physical Complaints and Overall Stress-TICS, the group differences became significant (p < .05). CONCLUSION: A relationship between stress parameters and LBP chronification was demonstrated among athletes for the first time.