Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: moderate-intensity continuous training
- Creators: Buman, Matthew P
Description
Many individual-level behavioral interventions improve health and well-being. However, most interventions exhibit considerable heterogeneity in response. Put differently, what might be effective on average might not be effective for specific individuals. From an individual’s perspective, many healthy behaviors exist that seem to have a positive impact. However, few existing tools support people in identifying interventions that work for them, personally.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.
ContributorsPhatak, Sayali Shekhar (Author) / Buman, Matthew P (Thesis advisor) / Hekler, Eric B. (Committee member) / Huberty, Jennifer L (Committee member) / Johnston, Erik W., 1977- (Committee member) / Swan, Pamela D (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
The winter holiday period has been highlighted as a major risk period for weight gain due to excess caloric intake in the form of fat and sugar. Furthermore, diets high in fat and sugar have been implicated in the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Exercise aids in the prevention of weight/fat gain, and prevents deleterious changes in cardiometabolic function. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of a fat-sugar supplemented diet, with and without two different exercise training protocols, on body composition, glycemic control and other markers of cardiovascular disease in an at-risk population of overweight and obese males. Twenty-seven, healthy overweight/obese (BMI >25 kg/m2) males were fed 2 donuts per day, 6 days/week, for four weeks, while maintaining their current diet. In addition, all subjects were randomized to one of the following conditions: sedentary control, 1,000 kcal/week moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) (50% of peak oxygen consumption), or 1,000 kcal/week high-intensity interval training (HIIT) (90-95% of peak heart rate). Supervised exercise training was performed 4 days/week on a cycle ergometer. Changes in body weight and composition, endothelial function, arterial stiffness, glycemic control, blood lipids and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) were assessed before and after the intervention. Body weight, lean mass and visceral fat increased significantly in HIIT (p<0.05) and were unchanged in MICT. There was a trend for a significant increase in body weight (p=0.07) and lean mass (p=0.11) in control. Glycemic control during the 2-h OGTT improved significantly in MICT and control, with no change in HIIT. Hepatic insulin resistance index (IRI) and 30-min insulin during the OGTT improved significantly after MICT and worsened following control (p=0.03), while HIIT was unchanged. CRF increased significantly in both HIIT and MICT, with no change in control (p<0.001). There were no significant changes in other markers of cardiovascular disease. The addition of a fat-sugar supplement (~14,500 kcal) over a 4-week period was not sufficient to induce deleterious changes in body composition and cardiometabolic health in overweight/obese young males. Exercise training did not afford overweight/obese males additional health benefits, with the exception of improvements in fitness and hepatic IRI.
ContributorsTucker, Wesley Jack (Author) / Gaesser, Glenn A (Thesis advisor) / Angadi, Siddhartha S (Committee member) / Whisner, Corrie M (Committee member) / Buman, Matthew P (Committee member) / Shaibi, Gabriel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016