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

Standard

Apples and oranges in the basket of a clinical model for exercise addiction: Rebuttal to Brevers et al. (2022). / Szabo, Attila; Dinardi, Jacob S; Egorov, Alexei Y.

In: Journal of Behavioral Addictions, Vol. 11, No. 2, 30.06.2022, p. 240-242.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

BibTeX

@article{6e0d9ca00d3f42a482d6d44233d53adc,

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

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "addiction, dependence, exercise, physical activity, sport, Exercise, Humans",

author = "Attila Szabo and Dinardi, {Jacob S} and Egorov, {Alexei Y}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Author(s).",

year = "2022",

month = jun,

day = "30",

doi = "10.1556/2006.2022.00036",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "240--242",

journal = "Journal of Behavioral Addictions",

issn = "2062-5871",

publisher = "Akademiai Kiado",

number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Apples and oranges in the basket of a clinical model for exercise addiction: Rebuttal to Brevers et al. (2022)

AU - Szabo, Attila

AU - Dinardi, Jacob S

AU - Egorov, Alexei Y

PY - 2022/6/30

Y1 - 2022/6/30

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - addiction

KW - dependence

KW - exercise

KW - physical activity

KW - sport

KW - Exercise

KW - Humans

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135374420&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/c4595b6f-33ff-3222-acfd-dee421684858/

U2 - 10.1556/2006.2022.00036

DO - 10.1556/2006.2022.00036

M3 - Article

C2 - 35895607

VL - 11

SP - 240

EP - 242

JO - Journal of Behavioral Addictions

JF - Journal of Behavioral Addictions

SN - 2062-5871

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 100884740