Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether the quantity of fat is different across the central (that is, android, trunk) and peripheral (that is, arm, leg and gynoid) regions among young African-American (AA), Asian (AS), Hispanic (HI) and non-Hispanic White (NHW) men. Subjects and Methods: A cohort of 852 men (18–30 years; mean total body fat percent (TBF%)=18.8±7.9, range=3.7–45.4) were assessed for body composition in five body regions via dual-emission X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Results: HI men (21.8±8.3) had higher TBF% than AA (17.0±10.0), NHW (17.9±7.2) and AS (18.9±8.0) groups (P-values <0.0001). AS had a lower BMI (23.9±3.4) than all other groups, and NHW (24.7±3.2) had a lower BMI than HI (25.7±3.9) and AA (26.5±4.7; P-values<0.0001). A linear mixed model (LMM) revealed a significant ethnicity by region fat% interaction (P<0.0001). HI men had a greater fat% than NHW for every region (adjusted means (%); android: 29.6 vs 23.3; arm: 13.3 vs 10.6; gynoid: 27.2 vs 23.8; leg: 21.2 vs 18.3; trunk: 25.5 vs 20.6) and a greater fat% than AA for every region except the arm. In addition, in the android and trunk regions, HI had a greater fat% than AS, and AS had a higher fat% than AA. Finally, the android fat% for AS was higher than that of NHW. When comparing the region fat% within ethnicities, the android region was greater than the gynoid region for AS and HI, but did not differ for AA and NHW, and the arm region had the least fat% in all ethnicities. Conclusions: Fat deposition and body fat patterning varies by ethnicity.

To better explain daily fluctuations in physical activity and sedentary behavior, investigations of motivation are turning from social cognitive frameworks to those centered on affect, emotion and automaticity, such as the Affect and Health Behavior Framework (AHBF), Integrated Framework and Affective-Reflective Theory (ART). This shift has necessitated: (a) re-examination of older theories and their constructs, such as drives, needs and tensions and (b) an inspection of competing theories from other fields that also attempt to explain dynamic changes in health behaviors. The Dynamical Model of Desire, Elaborated Intrusion Theory and others commonly share with AHBF the idea that human behavior is driven strongly by desires and/or the similar concepts of wants, urges, and cravings. These affectively-charged motivation states (ACMS) change quickly and may better explain physical activity behavior from one moment to the next. Desires for movement predominantly derive from negative but also positive reinforcement. Data from clinical populations with movement dysfunction or psychiatric disorders provides further evidence of these drivers of movement. Those with Restless Legs Syndrome, akathisia, tic disorders and exercise dependence all report strong urges to move and relief when it is accomplished. Motor control research has identified centers of the brain responsible for wants and urges for muscular movement. Models elaborated herein differentiate between wants, desires, urges and cravings. The WANT model (Wants and Aversions for Neuromuscular Tasks) conceptualizes desires for movement and rest as varying by magnitude, approach or avoidance-orientation (wants versus aversions) and as occupying independent dimensions instead of opposite ends of the same axis. For instance, one hypothetically might be in a state of both high desire for movement and rest simultaneously. Variations in motivation states to move and rest may also be associated with various stress states, like freezing or fight and flight. The first validated instrument to measure feelings of desire/want for movement and rest, the CRAVE Scale (Cravings for Rest and Volitional Energy Expenditure) is already shedding light on the nature of these states. With these advances in theory, conceptual modeling and instrumentation, future investigations may explore the effects of desires and urges for movement and sedentary behavior in earnest.

Physical activity is a meaningful part of life that starts before birth and lasts until death. There are many health benefits to be derived from physical activity; hence, regular engagement is recommended on a weekly basis. However, these recommendations are often not met. This raises the question: when and why are people motivated to be physically active? Attempts to explain the motivation for physical activity (or lack thereof) have been a research interest for many years and in many disciplines. In this review, we provide evidence suggesting that physical activity behavior and the psychophysiological foundations thereof are influenced by evolution, genetics, life stage, and the environment. The psychophysiological foundations in turn comprise motivational and volitional factors as described in traditional psychological theories, psychological states and traits such as affective and stress reactions, as well as physiological states and systems (e.g., anatomical development and neural networks and transmitters). Importantly, physical activity elicits differential physiological responses and subjective experiences, which may impact future physical activity behavior and motivation. In summary, the interplay of psychophysiological mechanisms and the importance of examining the ultimate mechanism for physical activity behavior are emphasized. The synthesis of knowledge provided in this review provides impetus for theory development and can facilitate the promotion of physically active lifestyles.

Recovery of muscular function and somatic sensations: perceived energy, fatigue, and soreness, in a 4-day period after a bout of strenuous resistance exercise. Undergraduate resistance training students (n = 31; age, 20.26 ± 1.34 years) completed the Perceived Stress Scale and the Undergraduate Stress Questionnaire, a measure of life event stress. At a later visit, they performed an acute heavy-resistance exercise protocol (10 repetition maximum [RM] leg press test plus 6 sets: 80–100% of 10RM). Maximal isometric force (MIF), perceived energy, fatigue, and soreness were assessed in approximately 24-hour intervals after exercise. Recovery data were analyzed with hierarchical linear modeling growth curve analysis. Life event stress significantly moderated linear (p = 0.027) and squared (p = 0.031) recovery of MIF. This relationship held even when the model was adjusted for fitness, workload, and training experience. Perceived energy (p = 0.038), fatigue (p = 0.040), and soreness (p = 0.027) all were moderated by life stress. Mean perceived stress modulated linear and squared recovery of MIF (p < 0.001) and energy (p = 0.004) but not fatigue or soreness. In all analyses, higher stress was associated with worse recovery. Stress, whether assessed as life event stress or perceived stress, moderated the recovery trajectories of muscular function and somatic sensations in a 96-hour period after strenuous resistance exercise. Therefore, under conditions of inordinate stress, individuals may need to be more mindful about observing an appropriate length of recovery....