Introduction: Obesity is a chronic condition that impacts 650 million adults globally. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications have demonstrated efficacy in reducing body weight. However, weight loss can lead to reductions in muscle mass. Resistance training, known to counteract muscle loss during caloric deficit, has not been thoroughly investigated regarding its daily predictors among this population. In this study, we aimed to explore how reflective, reflexive, and self-regulatory factors influence the intention and behavior of resistance training among GLP-1 users. Methods: Utilizing a 7-d daily diary method, participants received morning and afternoon surveys to gauge reflective (affective attitudes, capability, opportunity, and intention), reflexive (incidental daily affect), and self-regulatory (self-monitoring) factors, alongside their resistance training activity and intention to engage in resistance training. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to discern within and between participant associations with resistance training engagement and intention formation. Results: Findings indicate that on days participants reported higher-than-average incidental affect, intention, and self-monitoring, they were more likely to engage in resistance training. Similarly, those with higher levels of incidental affect, intention, and self-monitoring consistently showed a greater likelihood of participating in resistance training. Additionally, on days with higher-than-average affective attitude and perceived capabilities, participants were more likely to intend to engage in resistance training. Those with higher affective attitudes were also more likely to intend to resistance train. Conclusion: In summary, the results support a tri-partite (reflective, reflexive, and regulatory) approach to understanding resistance training participation in GLP-1 users. Future studies should focus on targeting these constructs using behavior modification techniques to encourage resistance training among GLP-1 medication users.
Kompf et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: