Ride on high: Another look at the psychology (and cycleology) of ‘cycling addiction’

Back in 2012, I wrote an article on cycling addiction for my blog and classed the behaviour as a sub-type of exercise addiction. Recently (June 2016), I was interviewed by Cycling Weekly magazine for an article on addiction to cycling, so I thought it opportune to look at the issue again. Over the last five years or so there has been an increase in the amount of research into exercise addiction (as I have outlined in a number of papers with my Hungarian colleagues Attila Szabo and Zsolt Demetrovics – see ‘Further reading’ below). However, there has still been no empirical research specifically into cycling addiction. In his 1997 book Motivation and Emotion in Sport, Dr. John Kerr speculated that endurance type exercise activities (e.g. running, cycling, swimming, aerobics and weight training) were most often associated with exercise addiction and dependence but this was based more on anecdotal as opposed to scientific evidence.

For the Cycling Weekly article, I was interviewed by Dr. Josephine Perry (who just happed to be both a psychologist and a cyclist). She noted in her article that:

“As a regular cyclist, it’s very likely you take a close interest in performance and have a strong drive to improve coupled with a willingness to push yourself hard in training and racing. Sometimes you probably feel under attack from family or colleagues who question or tease you about your ‘obsessive’ cycling habit. You no doubt retaliate by citing the many benefits of cycling: the brilliant friendships, massive health improvements, toned body and all the places you get to explore on your bike. But do your critics occasionally have a point? Does your relentless drive to improve sometimes go too far and place you in danger of crossing the thin line from dedication into addiction? Addiction to cycling is defined by an incessant internal need to train hard every day without taking the time off that you need to rest and recover — not to mention attend to other commitments in your life. In other words, addiction is defined by harm. You ignore the pleas from family or friends to cut back. Your priorities get rearranged, and nothing is allowed to come between you and your bike. Once this line is crossed, the benefits of cycling begin to diminish. The addicted cyclist feels more aches and pains, becomes prone to physical injuries, regular colds and hidden illnesses”.

In a recent (2016) book chapter, my colleagues and I noted that exercise addiction (irrespective of the sub-type) is a condition in which a regularly exercising person loses control over her or his exercise behaviour, while acting compulsively and exhibiting dependence, resulting in negative consequences in their day-to-day health and/or life. This maladaptive exercise behaviour is characterized by severe withdrawal symptoms when exercise is not possible, similar to both chemical addictions (e.g., alcohol addiction) and other behavioural addictions (e.g., gambling addiction). Based on the scientific evidence, exercise addiction is relatively rare, ranging from 0.3% to 0.5% as noted in the only study published using a representative national sample of the general population that we carried out in Hungary back in 2012 (published in the journal Psychology of Sport and Exercise). Given that exercise addiction (in general) is rare, the prevalence of cycling addiction would therefore be even lower. However, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

A recent study carried out by Dr. Bernd Zeulner and his colleagues among 1,031 endurance athletes (that included an unspecified number of cyclists) assessed the prevalence of exercise addiction using the Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI; a scale that I co-developed with my colleagues Attila Szabo and Annabel Terry). The study (published in the journal Advances in Physical Education) found that 2.7% had the potential to develop an exercise addiction and that is higher than the prevalence among the general population.

Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology by Dr. Jason Youngman and Dr. Duncan Simpson examined exercise addiction among 1,285 triathletes (cycling, swimming and running) also using the EAI. The study found that approximately 20% of triathletes were at risk for exercise addiction, and that training for longer distance races puts triathletes at greater risk for exercise addiction than training for shorter races. They also found that as the number of weekly training hours increased, so did a triathlete’s risk for exercise addiction. Despite the lack of empirical evidence specifically on cycling addiction, Dr. Perry also noted in her article that:

“[Addicted cyclists] can also become susceptible to burnout and all that comes with it: decreased performance, low mood, changes in appetite, difficulty sleeping and generally a feeling that the outcomes are not matching the intensity of the effort being put in. For a cycling addict, this loss of form and the feelings of difficulty can be devastating…Other research has found the risks are highest in those exercising over five times a week. With the average amount of training for serious amateur cyclists being around 10 hours a week, they are certainly in the higher-risk category”.

I am not sure which study Dr. Perry is referring to in this quote, but in my interview with her, I noted that from my perspective, any behaviour can be potentially addictive if the reward mechanisms are in place but that we should be cautious about imposing the ‘addiction’ label. I told her that we can’t define whether someone is addicted just by the behaviour that they display. It is all to do with the context of that behaviour in their life. More importantly, it’s is not about the amount of time spent engaging in the behaviour but what impact the behaviour has on them. As I explained:

“A healthy enthusiasm adds to their life. An addiction takes away from it. If you have no dependants and both you and your partner enjoy the sport and there is no conflict, it would not be classed as an addiction. If family conflict becomes a factor, the exercise habit becomes fraught with complications.”

I noted in my previous blog on cycling addiction that one of the traits that appears to be associated with exercise addiction is perfectionism according to a 1990 paper by Dr. Caroline Davis that appeared in the journal Personality and Individual Differences. Research (by Dr. Heather Hasenblaus among others) has also found that extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness predict exercise addiction symptoms. I also noted in my interview with Dr. Perry that some people (such as those with Type A personalities) appear to have their risk for exercise addiction built into them. Some cyclists will be those Type-A achievers who are reward-orientated to do the best they can, in whatever they do. If they take up a sport, those personality traits previously used to be successful and focused in other areas such as work go into the new area.

I also noted in my Cycling Weekly interview that there are a number of signs that can help you spot if your attitude towards cycling is unhealthy. The most obvious one is when cycling becomes the most important activity in your life, dominating thinking, feelings and behaviour. If you need to cycle more to get the same mood benefit that you used to, your mood changes significantly and/or you feel physical effects when you can’t cycle, you may also be at risk. If you start to resent your family, job, social life, hobbies or other interests getting in the way of you cycling, you need to consider if you have crossed the line. Those addicted to cycling are more likely to get into debt to fund their habit, become excessively controlling over their eating to regulate weight and competitiveness, and find it hard to balance work, social and family commitments with training.

I was also asked for my views on the treatment of cycling addiction and said that cognitive-behavioural therapy would likely be the most effective (as the addict would be guided to identify goals that motivate them and be helped to find safe and reasonable ways to reach those goals) but that the type of treatment depends on whether the addiction to cycling was primary or secondary. Primary addicts, who are actually addicted because they love their sport, will find it is very hard to give up. Telling them they can’t continue will be stressful in itself. Secondary addicts may be trying to lose weight or to escape negative, unpleasant feelings or difficulties in their lives, using cycling to control their thoughts. These cyclists are using exercise as a coping mechanism. The key here is finding out why they are doing it to such an extent in the first place. Most will find their addiction is symptomatic of something else.

After interviewing me about whether cycling can be potentially addictive, Dr. Perry summed up my own views arguably better than I could have done it myself:

“[Cycling addiction] is not just about how many hours you are doing on the bike, how much you love your riding, or how many bikes you have; what matters is the impact on your life. If your work and family life allows it without conflict, and you’re not feeling over-stressed or over-tired, then your commitment to cycling is just that – a commitment. If you are suffering from continual injuries and not recovering fully, have found yourself feeling burnt out, dips in mood, feel obliged to miss family or social events for training, resulting in arguments, then you need to ask yourself seriously: am I addicted?”

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Allegre, B., Souville, M., Therme, P. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Definitions and measures of exercise dependence, Addiction Research and Theory, 14, 631-646.

Berczik, K., Griffiths, M.D., Szabó, A., Kurimay, T., Kökönyei, G., Urbán, R. and Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Exercise addiction – the emergence of a new disorder. Australasian Epidemiologist, 21(2), 36-40.

Berczik, K., Griffiths, M.D., Szabó, A., Kurimay, T., Urban, R. & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Exercise addiction. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral Addictions: Criteria, Evidence and Treatment (pp.317-342). New York: Elsevier.

Berczik, K., Szabó, A., Griffiths, M.D., Kurimay, T., Kun, B. & Demetrovics, Z. (2011). Exercise addiction: Symptoms, diagnosis, epidemiology, and etiology. Substance Use and Misuse, 47, 403-417.

Davis, C. (1990). Weight and diet preoccupation and addictiveness: The role of exercise. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 823-827.

Freimuth, M., Moniz, S., & Kim, S.R. (2011). Clarifying exercise addiction: differential diagnosis, co-occurring disorders, and phases of addiction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(10), 4069-4081.

Griffiths, M. D. (1997). Exercise addiction: A case study. Addiction Research, 5, 161-168.

Griffiths, M. D., Szabo, A., & Terry, A. (2005). The exercise addiction inventory: a quick and easy screening tool for health practitioners. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(6), e30-31.

Griffiths, M.D., Urbán, R., Demetrovics, Z., Lichtenstein, M.B., de la Vega, R., Kun, B., Ruiz-Barquín, R., Youngman, J. & Szabo, A. (2015). A cross-cultural re-evaluation of the Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI) in five countries. Sports Medicine Open, 1:5.

Hausenblas, H.A., & Giacobbi, P.R. (2004). Relationship between exercise dependence symptoms and personality. Personality and Individual differences, 36(6), 1265-1273.

Kerr, J. H. (1997) Motivation and Emotion in Sport: Reversal Theory. Hove: Psychology Press.

Kerr, J.H., Lindner, K.J. & Blaydon, M. (2007). Exercise Dependence. Oxford: Rutledge.

Kurimay, T., Griffiths, M.D., Berczik, K., & Demetrovics, Z. (2013). Exercise addiction: The dark side of sports and exercise. In Baron, D., Reardon, C. & Baron, S.H., Contemporary Issues in Sports Psychiatry: A Global Perspective (pp.33-43). Chichester: Wiley.

Mónok, K., Berczik, K., Urbán, R., Szabó^, A., Griffiths, M.D., Farkas, J., Magi, A., Eisinger, A., Kurimay, T., Kökönyei, G., Kun, B., Paksi, B. & Demetrovics, Z. (2012). Psychometric properties and concurrent validity of two exercise addiction measures: A population wide study in Hungary. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 739-746.

Perry, J. (2016). Are you addicted to cycling? Cycling Weekly, July 21. Located at: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/fitness/training/are-you-addicted-to-cycling-261852

Szabo, A., Griffiths, M.D., de La Vega Marcos, R., Mervo, B. & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Methodological and conceptual limitations in exercise addiction research. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 86, 303-308.

Szabo, A., Griffiths, M.D. & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Exercise addiction. In V. Preedy (Ed.), The Neuropathology Of Drug Addictions And Substance Misuse (Vol. 3) (pp. 984-992). London: Academic Press.

Terry, A., Szabo, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2004). The exercise addiction inventory: A new brief screening tool. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 489-499.

Youngman, J., & Simpson, D. (2014). Risk for exercise addiction: A comparison of triathletes training for sprint-, Olympic-, half-Ironman-, and Ironman-distance triathlons. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 8, 19-37.

Zeulner, B., Ziemainz, H., Beyer, C., Hammon, M., & Janka, R. (2016). Disordered Eating and Exercise Dependence in Endurance Athletes. Advances in Physical Education, 6(2), 76.

Running up debt: A brief overview of our recent papers on exercise and shopping addictions

Following my recent blogs where I outlined some of the papers that my colleagues and I have published on mindfulness, Internet addiction, gaming addiction, youth gambling and other addictive behaviours, here is a round-up of recent papers that my colleagues and I have published on exercise addiction and shopping addictions (i.e., compulsive buying).

Griffiths, M.D., Urbán, R., Demetrovics, Z., Lichtenstein, M.B., de la Vega, R., Kun, B., Ruiz-Barquín, R., Youngman, J. & Szabo, A. (2015). A cross-cultural re-evaluation of the Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI) in five countries. Sports Medicine Open, 1:5.

• Research into the detrimental effects of excessive exercise has been conceptualized in a number of similar ways, including ‘exercise addiction’, ‘exercise dependence’, ‘obligatory exercising’, ‘exercise abuse’, and ‘compulsive exercise’. Among the most currently used (and psychometrically valid and reliable) instruments is the Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI). The present study aimed to further explore the psychometric properties of the EAI by combining the datasets of a number of surveys carried out in five different countries (Denmark, Hungary, Spain, UK, and US) that have used the EAI with a total sample size of 6,031 participants. A series of multigroup confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were carried out examining configural invariance, metric invariance, and scalar invariance. The CFAs using the combined dataset supported the configural invariance and metric invariance but not scalar invariance. Therefore, EAI factor scores from five countries are not comparable because the use or interpretation of the scale was different in the five nations. However, the covariates of exercise addiction can be studied from a cross-cultural perspective because of the metric invariance of the scale. Gender differences among exercisers in the interpretation of the scale also emerged. The implications of the results are discussed, and it is concluded that the study’s findings will facilitate a more robust and reliable use of the EAI in future research.

Mónok, K., Berczik, K., Urbán, R., Szabó^, A., Griffiths, M.D., Farkas, J., Magi, A., Eisinger, A., Kurimay, T., Kökönyei, G., Kun, B., Paksi, B. & Demetrovics, Z. (2012). Psychometric properties and concurrent validity of two exercise addiction measures: A population wide study in Hungary. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 739-746.

• Objectives: The existence of exercise addiction has been examined in numerous studies. However, none of the measures developed for exercise addiction assessment have been validated on representative samples. Furthermore, estimates of exercise addiction prevalence in the general population are not available. The objective of the present study was to validate the Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI; Terry, Szabo, & Griffiths, 2004), and the Exercise Dependence Scale (EDS; Hausenblas & Downs, 2002b), and to estimate the prevalence of exercise addiction in general population. Design: Exercise addiction was assessed within the framework of the National Survey on Addiction Problems in Hungary (NSAPH), a national representative study for the population aged 18–64 years (N = 2710). Method: 474 people in the sample (57% males; mean age 33.2 years) who reported to exercise at least once a week were asked to complete the two questionnaires (EAI, EDS). Results: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated good fit both in the case of EAI (CFI = 0.971; TLI = 0.952; RMSEA = 0.052) and EDS (CFI = 0.938; TLI = 0.922; RMSEA = 0.049); and confirmed the factor structure of the two scales. The correlation between the two measures was high (r = 0.79). Results showed that 6.2% (EDS) and 10.1% (EAI) of the population were characterized as nondependent-symptomatic exercisers, while the proportion of the at-risk exercisers were 0.3% and 0.5%, respectively. Conclusions: Both EAI and EDS proved to be a reliable assessment tool for exercise addiction, a phenomenon that is present in the 0.3–0.5% of the adult general population.

Szabo, A., Griffiths, M.D., de La Vega Marcos, R., Mervo, B. & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Methodological and conceptual limitations in exercise addiction research. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 86, 303-308.

• The aim of this brief analytical review is to highlight and disentangle research dilemmas in the field of exercise addiction. Research examining exercise addiction is primarily based on self-reports, obtained by questionnaires (incorporating psychometrically validated instruments), and interviews, which provide a range of risk scores rather than diagnosis. Survey methodology indicates that the prevalence of risk for exercise addiction is approximately 3 percent among the exercising population. Several studies have reported a substantially greater prevalence of risk for exercise addiction in elite athletes compared to those who exercise for leisure. However, elite athletes may assign a different interpretation to the assessment tools than leisure exercisers. The present paper examines the: 1) discrepancies in the classification of exercise addiction; 2) inconsistent reporting of exercise addiction prevalence; and 3) varied interpretation of exercise addiction diagnostic tools. It is concluded that there is the need for consistent terminology, to follow-up results derived from exercise addiction instruments with interviews, and to follow a theory-driven rationale in this area of research.

Andreassen, C.S., Griffiths, M.D., Pallesen, S., Bilder, R.M., Torsheim, T. Aboujaoude, E.N. (2015). The Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale: Reliability and validity of a brief screening test. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1374. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01374.

• Although excessive and compulsive shopping has been increasingly placed within the behavioral addiction paradigm in recent years, items in existing screens arguably do not assess the core criteria and components of addiction. To date, assessment screens for shopping disorders have primarily been rooted within the impulse-control or obsessive-compulsive disorder paradigms. Furthermore, existing screens use the terms ‘shopping,’ ‘buying,’ and ‘spending’ interchangeably, and do not necessarily reflect contemporary shopping habits. Consequently, a new screening tool for assessing shopping addiction was developed. Initially, 28 items, four for each of seven addiction criteria (salience, mood modification, conflict, tolerance, withdrawal, relapse, and problems), were constructed. These items and validated scales (i.e., Compulsive Buying Measurement Scale, Mini-International Personality Item Pool, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) were then administered to 23,537 participants (Mage = 35.8 years, SDage = 13.3). The highest loading item from each set of four pooled items reflecting the seven addiction criteria were retained in the final scale, The Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS). The factor structure of the BSAS was good (RMSEA=0.064, CFI=0.983, TLI=0.973) and coefficient alpha was 0.87. The scores on the BSAS converged with scores on the Compulsive Buying Measurement Scale (CBMS; 0.80), and were positively correlated with extroversion and neuroticism, and negatively with conscientiousness, agreeableness, and intellect/imagination. The scores of the BSAS were positively associated with anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem and inversely related to age. Females scored higher than males on the BSAS. The BSAS is the first scale to fully embed shopping addiction within an addiction paradigm. A recommended cutoff score for the new scale and future research directions are discussed.

Davenport, K., Houston, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Excessive eating and compulsive buying behaviours in women: An empirical pilot study examining reward sensitivity, anxiety, impulsivity, self-esteem and social desirability. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 474-489.

• ‘Mall disorders’ such as excessive eating and compulsive buying appear to be increasing, particularly among women. A battery of questionnaires was used in an attempt to determine this association between specific personality traits (i.e., reward sensitivity, impulsivity, cognitive and somatic anxiety, self-esteem, and social desirability) and excessive eating and compulsive buying in 134 women. Reward sensitivity and cognitive anxiety were positively related to excessive eating and compulsive buying, as was impulsivity to compulsive buying. Somatic anxiety and social desirability were negatively related to compulsive buying. These preliminary findings indicate that excessive behaviours are not necessarily interrelated. The behaviours examined in this study appear to act as an outlet for anxiety via the behaviours’ reinforcing properties (e.g., pleasure, attention, praise, etc.). As a consequence, this may boost self-esteem. The findings also appear to indicate a number of risk factors that could be used as ‘warning signs’ that the behaviour may develop into an addiction.

Maraz, A., Eisinger, A., Hende, Urbán, R., Paksi, B., Kun, B., Kökönyei, G., Griffiths, M.D. & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Measuring compulsive buying behaviour: Psychometric validity of three different scales and prevalence in the general population and in shopping centres. Psychiatry Research, 225, 326–334.

• Due to the problems of measurement and the lack of nationally representative data, the extent of compulsive buying behaviour (CBB) is relatively unknown. The validity of three different instruments was tested: Edwards Compulsive Buying Scale, Questionnaire About Buying Behavior and Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale using two independent samples. One was nationally representative of the Hungarian population (N=2710) while the other comprised shopping mall customers (N=1447). As a result, a new, four-factor solution for the ECBS was developed (Edwards Compulsive Buying Scale Revised (ECBS-R)), and confirmed the other two measures. Additionally, cut-off scores were defined for all measures. Results showed that the prevalence of CBB is 1.85% (with QABB) in the general population but significantly higher in shopping mall customers (8.7% with ECBS-R, 13.3% with QABB and 2.5% with RCBS-R). Conclusively, due to the diversity of content, each measure identifies a somewhat different CBB group.

Maraz, A., Griffiths, M.D., & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). The prevalence of compulsive buying in non-clinical populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction, 111, 408-419.

• Aims: To estimate the pooled prevalence of compulsive buying behaviour (CBB) in different populations and to determine the effect of age, gender, location and screening instrument on the reported heterogeneity in estimates of CBB and whether publication bias could be identified. Methods: Three databases were searched (Medline, PsychInfo, Web of Science) using the terms ‘compulsive buying’, ‘pathological buying’ and ‘compulsive shopping’ to estimate the pooled prevalence of CBB in different populations. Forty studies reporting 49 prevalence estimates from 16 countries were located (n = 32 000). To conduct the meta-analysis, data from non-clinical studies regarding mean age and gender proportion, geographical study location and screening instrument used to assess CBB were extracted by multiple independent observers and evaluated using a random-effects model. Four a priori subgroups were analysed using pooled estimation (Cohen’s Q) and covariate testing (moderator and meta-regression analysis). Results: The CBB pooled prevalence of adult representative studies was 4.9% (3.4–6.9%, eight estimates, 10 102 participants), although estimates were higher among university students: 8.3% (5.9–11.5%, 19 estimates, 14 947 participants) in adult non-representative samples: 12.3% (7.6–19.1%, 11 estimates, 3929 participants) and in shopping-specific samples: 16.2% (8.8–27.8%, 11 estimates, 4686 participants). Being young and female were associated with increased tendency, but not location (United States versus non-United States). Meta-regression revealed large heterogeneity within subgroups, due mainly to diverse measures and time-frames (current versus life-time) used to assess CBB. Conclusions: A pooled estimate of compulsive buying behaviour in the populations studied is approximately 5%, but there is large variation between samples accounted for largely by use of different time-frames and measures.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Allegre, B., Souville, M., Therme, P. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Definitions and measures of exercise dependence, Addiction Research and Theory, 14, 631-646.

Allegre, B., Therme, P. & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Individual factors and the context of physical activity in exercise dependence: A prospective study of ‘ultra-marathoners’. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5, 233-243.

Berczik, K., Szabó, A., Griffiths, M.D., Kurimay, T., Kun, B. & Demetrovics, Z. (2012). Exercise addiction: symptoms, diagnosis, epidemiology, and etiology. Substance Use and Misuse, 47, 403-417.

Berczik, K., Griffiths, M.D., Szabó, A., Kurimay, T., Kökönyei, G., Urbán, R. and Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Exercise addiction – the emergence of a new disorder. Australasian Epidemiologist, 21(2), 36-40.

Berczik, K., Griffiths, M.D., Szabó, A., Kurimay, T., Urban, R. & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Exercise addiction. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral Addictions: Criteria, Evidence and Treatment (pp.317-342). New York: Elsevier.

Griffiths, M.D. (1997). Exercise addiction: A case study. Addiction Research, 5, 161-168.

Griffiths, M.D., Szabo, A. & Terry, A. (2005). The Exercise Addiction Inventory: A quick and easy screening tool for health practitioners. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, 30-31.

Kurimay, T., Griffiths, M.D., Berczik, K., & Demetrovics, Z. (2013). Exercise addiction: The dark side of sports and exercise. In Baron, D., Reardon, C. & Baron, S.H., Contemporary Issues in Sports Psychiatry: A Global Perspective (pp.33-43). Chichester: Wiley.

Szabo, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Exercise addiction in British sport science students. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5, 25-28.

Terry, A., Szabo, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2004). The Exercise Addiction Inventory: A new brief screening tool, Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 489-499.

Warner, R. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). A qualitative thematic analysis of exercise addiction: An exploratory study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 13-26.

Winning runs? Another look at exercise addiction

Research appears to indicate that at times of psychological and/or emotional hardship, some habitual exercisers engage in such activity as a form of escape. The reliance on exercise as a means of coping with adversity has the potential become obsessive as well as compulsive. Associated with increased tolerance, over-exercising may lead to physical injuries, and (in extreme cases) irreversible health consequences, and mortality. Over-exercising to the point where a person loses control over the exercise routine has been termed ‘exercise addiction’ or ‘exercise dependence’. Due to the multidisciplinary nature of the literature regarding problematic exercise, different screening instruments have been formulated to assess the problem. In a 2013 issue of the journal Psychology of Sport and Exercise, I and a team of Hungarian researchers published the first ever national study of exercise addiction, and compared two different screening instruments (i.e., the Exercise Addiction Inventory [EAI] and the Exercise Dependence Scale [EDS]).

We made the assumption that these two instruments attempt to assess the same phenomenon. We also published a comprehensive review examining the literature on problematic exercise in a 2012 issue of Substance Use and Misuse and came to the conclusion that the most appropriate term to use is ‘exercise addiction’ because it incorporates both ‘dependence’ and ‘compulsion’. However, most researchers in the field use the terms ‘exercise addiction’, ‘exercise dependence’ and ‘compulsive exercise’ to mean the same thing.

These six core components of addictive behaviour that I outlined in my very first blog served the theoretical foundation for the Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI). The EAI is a short, psychometrically validated questionnaire that comprises only six statements, each corresponding to one of the symptoms in the ‘components’ model of addiction. However, the cut-off points for exercise addiction were never tested psychometrically. The Exercise Dependence Scale (EDS) was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-IV criteria for substance dependence. The higher the score, the higher is the risk for addiction.

The EAI and the EDS are perhaps the most recent and most widely used screening tools in the research area of exercise addiction, primarily because of their superior psychometric properties in contrast to other instruments, and secondarily because of their theoretical underpinning. However, until our recently published study, these two tools had never been used in a nationally representative study. We assessed exercise addiction within the framework of the National Survey on Addiction Problems in Hungary (NSAPH).

The final sample comprised 2,170 people, stratified according to geographical location, degree of urbanization, and age. Those in this sample who engaged in regular exercise at least on a weekly basis (17.5%) were invited to complete the EAI and the EDS and comprised 474 participants (270 males and 204 females). In line with our assumptions, there was a high correlation between the two exercise addiction/dependence measures. On the basis of results we obtained, we reported that 0.3-0.5% of population is involved in addictive exercise (and equates to 1.9% to 3.2% of weekly regular exercisers).

As mentioned above, our study is the first national study ever to assess the prevalence of exercise addiction in a representative national sample and therefore there are no studies to compare our national findings of the study to. Our study provides primary benchmark data that subsequent national studies will need to be compared to. It is also the first ever study to compare the psychometric properties of (arguably) the two most widely used screening instruments that assess exercise dependence/addiction.

Based on the results of our study, it appears that both of the tools we examined (i.e., EAI and EDS) can reliably be applied in the future for both scientific research in the exercise addiction field, and as a screening instrument in non-research settings. For instance, the short, 6-item EAI could be used as a screening instrument in empirical surveys as a way of combating questionnaire fatigue. It could also be used as a ‘quick and easy’ tool that can be used by health practitioners (such as GPs with their patients) in screening for exercise addiction. The EDS also appears to be suitable for acquiring a more detailed and greater empirical insight to the problem in future studies.

However, there were also a number of limitations to our study. Owing to the sampling method, it was financially impractical to use observational data on physical activity and/or face-to-face clinical interviewing, and therefore we had to base our analysis solely on the basis of self-reports. Self-report data is also prone to the weaknesses of survey methodologies more generally including factors such as recall bias and social desirability. Another limitation was the cross-sectional nature of the dataset, therefore the causality inferences are limited, although further research may identify trends in exercise behaviours and provide models to determine the changes in exercise addiction. Another important question is the generalizability of these results to other countries. However, this question cannot be answered in a reliable way. Though the prevalence of regular exercise is lower in Hungary than in most of the other countries of the European Union, this result, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean that prevalence of excessive exercise is lower as well. It is also possible that though the prevalence of regular exercise is lower than in other countries, prevalence of exercise addiction among the exercisers is higher.

Our results indicate that while optimal regular exercising is a key component of preserving and improving physical and mental health, in case of a small proportion of the population, excessive exercise can generate significant problems. Both the EDS and EAI are adequate screening solutions to assessing exercise dependence/addiction within target populations. While the seven-factor EDS might give a more complex picture on the problem, the short, 6-item EAI has the added advantage of providing anyone who uses the instrument with an estimation of problems with exercise very quickly. Nevertheless, clinical validation of these assessment tools needs to be further targeted and scrutinized by future research.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Allegre, B., Souville, M., Therme, P., & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Definitions and measures of exercise dependence, Addiction Research and Theory, 14, 631-646.

Allegre, B., Therme, P., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Individual factors and the context of physical activity in exercise dependence: A prospective study of ‘ultra-marathoners’. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5, 233-243.

Berczik, K., Szabó, A., Griffiths, M. D., Kurimay, T., Kun, B., Urbán, R., & Demetrovics, Z. (2012). Exercise addiction: symptoms, diagnosis, epidemiology, and etiology. Substance Use and Misuse, 47, 403-417.

Downs, D. S., Hausenblas, H. A., & Nigg, C. R. (2004). Factorial validity and psychomaetric examination of the Exercise Dependence Scale-Revised. Measurement in Phisical Education and Exercise Science, 8, 183-201.

Griffiths, M. (1997). Exercise addiction: A case study. Addiction Research, 5, 161-168.

Griffiths, M. D., Szabo, A., & Terry, A. (2005). The exercise addiction inventory: a quick and easy screening tool for health practitioners. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, e30-31.

Hausenblas H. A., & Downs, S. D. (2002a) Exercise dependence: a systematic review. Psychology of Sport Exercise, 3, 89-123.

Hausenblas, H. A., & Downs, S. D. (2002). How much is too much? The development and validation of the exercise dependence scale. Psychology and Health, 17, 387-404.

Mónok, K., Berczik, K., Urbán, R., Szabó^, A., Griffiths, M.D., Farkas, J., Magi, A., Eisinger, A., Kurimay, T., Kökönyei, G., Kun, B., Paksi, B. & Demetrovics, Z. (2012). Psychometric properties and concurrent validity of two exercise addiction measures: A population wide study in Hungary. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 739-746.

Sussman, S., Lisha, N., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Prevalence of the addictions: A problem of the majority or the minority? Evaluation and the Health Professions, 34, 3-56.

Szabo, A. (2000). Physical activity as a source of psychological dysfunction. In S. J. Biddle, K. R. Fox & S. H. Boutcher (Eds.), Physical Activity and Psychological Well-Being (pp. 130-153). London: Routledge.

Szabo, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Exercise addiction in British sport science students. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5, 25-28.

Terry, A., Szabo, A., & Griffiths, M. (2004). The exercise addiction inventory: a new brief screening tool. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 489-499.