•  
  •  
 

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF A TOOL DESIGNED TO COMPARE THE HEALTH ​OUTCOMES OF WEIGHTLIFTERS​

Abstract

Weightlifting is a term that generally refers to physical exercises and activities in which people lift weights, often in the form of barbells, dumbbells, machines, bodyweight or other objects. PURPOSE: To design a readily available tool to compare the health behaviors of weightlifters across several disciplines. METHODS: Face and content validity were established in two phases; Firstly, by a panel of four faculty members using the Delphi method. One-hundred percent agreement was obtained on all items during this phase. Following this phase, the nominal group technique was used to reach a consensus on items that needed to be reworded or adjusted, as well as for new survey item elicitation. The participants (n = 6) in this phase represented the demographic we wished to sample from: one powerlifter who competed regionally, five recreational weightlifters, and a runner who lifted for athletic competition. One-hundred percent agreement was obtained on all items during this phase. The survey was shared with participants (n = 501) in various gyms and fitness centers using either a link or a quick-response (QR) code. RESULTS: Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 28 (Armonk, NY). CrossFit® (r = .12-.37, p<.05) and calisthenics (r = .10 -.37, p<.05) shared significant relationships with all other methods of training. Powerlifting shared relationships with all other methods except for general fitness (r = .15-.37, p<.05). Olympic weightlifting shared relationships with all other methods except general fitness (r = .10-.37, p<.05). Athletic competition shared relationships with all other methods except for bodybuilding (r = .11-.29, p<.05). Highland Games (r = .14-.35, p<.05) and Strongman (r = .14-.35, p<.05) shared relationships with all methods except bodybuilding and general fitness. Bodybuilding shared moderate relationships with powerlifting, and weak relationships with Olympic, CrossFit®, and calisthenics. General fitness shared a relationship with only CrossFit® (r=.25, p<.05). Using principal axis factoring, three factors were found: Lifting for Health and Skill-Related Fitness (HSF; α=.57); Functional & Unconventional Lifting (FUL; α = .64); and Classical Methods (CM; α=.53). Cronbach’s α for the tool in unity was .67. CONCLUSION: The survey somewhat differentiates weightlifting disciplines based on training relationships and underlying factors. The tool demonstrates moderate reliability and identifies three dimensions of lifting behaviors. These findings provide a foundation for further research on the health behaviors of weightlifters across various disciplines.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS