(11) RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EXERCISE MOTIVATION, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY INTENSITY, RESISTANCE TRAINING FREQUENCY, AND BODY FATNESS AMONG TACTICAL PERSONNEL

Developing physical fitness is a primary component of most training academies for tactical personnel. However, once on the job, these individuals are often responsible for maintaining the occupational fitness developed during this period. However, the effects of motivation on exercise behaviors and health have not been fully explored in this population.

Purpose: To report motivation regulations for exercise (as measured by the Behavioral Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire-3 [BREQ-3]), intensity of physical activity (PA) and frequency of resistance training (RT) as measured by a modified Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ+) among a group of tactical personnel from a South Central US state. The secondary purpose was to determine relationships between motivation regulation and self-reported PA habits and body fat percentage (BF%).

Methods: Self-reported motivation, PA, and RT questionnaire data from 59 male (age: 32.14 ± 12.28 years; height: 178.86 ± 7.78 cm; mass: 94.59 ± 18.71 kg; BF%: 22.92 ± 8.36) and 18 female (age: 26.28 ± 9.26 years; height: 164.66 ± 5.78 cm; mass: 74.26 ± 16.14 kg; BF%: 34.44 ± 7.47) tactical personnel (law enforcement officers [n=21], Special Operations and Tactics members [n=18], and Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets [n=38]) was used in this analysis. Height, mass and BF% were measured using a stadiometer, scale and bioelectrical impedance analysis. Subjects then responded to the BREQ-3 to assess intrinsic/extrinsic motivation level and amotivation regarding exercise, and the GLTEQ+ to determine self-reported intensity and frequency of PA and RT. Spearman’s correlations were used to identify relationships between motivation regulation and intensity of PA, frequency of RT, and BF%.

Results: No significant differences were observed between groups of tactical personnel or sex. Approximately 65% of participants (n=50) identified as being intrinsically motivated, while 32.5% (n=25) identified as extrinsically motivated. Only 2.6% of participants (n=2) were identified as amotivated. Intrinsic motivation (ρ= -.25, p=.03) and amotivation (ρ= .27, p= .02) were significantly correlated with BF%, while extrinsic motivation was not. All motivation categories were significantly correlated to frequency of RT (ρ= -.31 to .57; p < .01). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation were both significantly correlated with intensity of PA (ρ= .24 to .40; p < .04), while amotivation was not.

Conclusions: The majority of participants in this study identified as intrinsically motivated, indicating their reason for engaging in PA/RT was due to inherent satisfaction with exercise. The data suggests individuals that were intrinsically motivated tended to possess lower BF% compared to those who were extrinsically or amotivated. As motivation exists on a spectrum, individuals may show a shift in motivation regulation over time, and may adjust depending on their occupation (environment), personal goals, and perceived degree of autonomy.  PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: This information may be useful for practitioners for manipulating the training environment based on an individual or group basis to influence exercise motivation within these populations, thereby improving exercise adherence and overall health. As physical fitness is of the utmost importance for tactical personnel, maximizing the perceived personal satisfaction (intrinsic regulation) they receive from PA/RT could aid in the attainment of healthy body composition levels.

Acknowledgements: None