@misc{NiedererVogtWippertetal.2016,
  author    = {Niederer, Daniel and Vogt, Lutz and Wippert, Pia-Maria and Puschmann, Anne-Katrin and Pfeifer, Ann-Christin and Schiltenwolf, Marcus and Banzer, Winfried and Mayer, Frank},
  title     = {Medicine in spine exercise (MiSpEx) for nonspecific low back pain patients},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {444},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-407308},
  pages     = {9},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background: Arising from the relevance of sensorimotor training in the therapy of nonspecific low back pain patients and from the value of individualized therapy, the present trial aims to test the feasibility and efficacy of individualized sensorimotor training interventions in patients suffering from nonspecific low back pain. Methods and study design: A multicentre, single-blind two-armed randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of a 12-week (3 weeks supervised centre-based and 9 weeks home-based) individualized sensorimotor exercise program is performed. The control group stays inactive during this period. Outcomes are pain, and pain-associated function as well as motor function in adults with nonspecific low back pain. Each participant is scheduled to five measurement dates: baseline (M1), following centre-based training (M2), following home-based training (M3) and at two follow-up time points 6 months (M4) and 12 months (M5) after M1. All investigations and the assessment of the primary and secondary outcomes are performed in a standardized order: questionnaires - clinical examination - biomechanics (motor function). Subsequent statistical procedures are executed after the examination of underlying assumptions for parametric or rather non-parametric testing. Discussion: The results and practical relevance of the study will be of clinical and practical relevance not only for researchers and policy makers but also for the general population suffering from nonspecific low back pain. Trial registration: Identification number DRKS00010129. German Clinical Trial registered on 3 March 2016.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MoserMaderTschakertetal.2016,
  author    = {Moser, Othmar and Mader, Julia K. and Tschakert, Gerhard and Mueller, Alexander and Groeschl, Werner and Pieber, Thomas R. and Koehler, Gerd and Messerschmidt, Janin and Hofmann, Peter},
  title     = {Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) during Continuous and High-Intensity Interval Exercise in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus},
  series = {Nutrients},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Nutrients},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2072-6643},
  doi       = {10.3390/nu8080489},
  pages     = {15},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Continuous exercise (CON) and high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) can be safely performed with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Additionally, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems may serve as a tool to reduce the risk of exercise-induced hypoglycemia. It is unclear if CGM is accurate during CON and HIIE at different mean workloads. Seven T1DM patients performed CON and HIIE at 5\% below (L) and above (M) the first lactate turn point (LTP1), and 5\% below the second lactate turn point (LTP2) (H) on a cycle ergometer. Glucose was measured via CGM and in capillary blood (BG). Differences were found in comparison of CGM vs. BG in three out of the six tests (p < 0.05). In CON, bias and levels of agreement for L, M, and H were found at: 0.85 (-3.44, 5.15) mmol.L-1, -0.45 (-3.95, 3.05) mmol.L-1, -0.31 (-8.83, 8.20) mmol.L-1 and at 1.17 (-2.06, 4.40) mmol.L-1, 0.11 (-5.79, 6.01) mmol.L-1, 1.48 (-2.60, 5.57) mmol.L-1 in HIIE for the same intensities. Clinically-acceptable results (except for CON H) were found. CGM estimated BG to be clinically acceptable, except for CON H. Additionally, using CGM may increase avoidance of exercise-induced hypoglycemia, but usual BG control should be performed during intense exercise.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Antoniewicz2016,
  author    = {Antoniewicz, Franziska},
  title     = {Automatic evaluations of exercising},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-92280},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Changing the perspective sometimes offers completely new insights to an already well-known phenomenon. Exercising behavior, defined as planned, structured and repeated bodily movements with the intention to maintain or increase the physical fitness (Caspersen, Powell, \& Christenson, 1985), can be thought of as such a well-known phenomenon that has been in the scientific focus for many decades (Dishman \& O'Connor, 2005). Within these decades a perspective that assumes rational and controlled evaluations as the basis for decision making, was predominantly used to understand why some people engage in physical activity and others do not (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015). Dual-process theories (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015; Payne \& Gawronski, 2010) provide another perspective, that is not exclusively influenced by rational reasoning. These theories differentiate two different processes that guide behavior "depending on whether they operate automatically or in a controlled fashion" (Gawronski \& Creighton, 2012, p. 282). Following this line of thought, exercise behavior is not solely influenced by thoughtful deliberations (e.g. concluding that exercising is healthy) but also by spontaneous affective reactions (e.g. disliking being sweaty while exercising). The theoretical frameworks of dual-process models are not new in psychology (Chaiken \& Trope, 1999) and have already been used for the explanation of numerous behaviors (e.g. Hofmann, Friese, \& Wiers, 2008; Huijding, de Jong, Wiers, \& Verkooijen, 2005). However, they have only rarely been used for the explanation of exercise behavior (e.g. Bluemke, Brand, Schweizer, \& Kahlert, 2010; Conroy, Hyde, Doerksen, \& Ribeiro, 2010; Hyde, Doerksen, Ribeiro, \& Conroy, 2010). The assumption of two dissimilar behavior influencing processes, differs fundamentally from previous theories and thus from the research that has been conducted in the last decades in exercise psychology. Research mainly concentrated on predictors of the controlled processes and addressed the identified predictors in exercise interventions (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, \& Biddle, 2002). Predictors arising from the described automatic processes, for example automatic evaluations for exercising (AEE), have been neglected in exercise psychology for many years. Until now, only a few researchers investigated the influence of these AEE for exercising behavior (Bluemke et al., 2010; Brand \& Schweizer, 2015; Markland, Hall, Duncan, \& Simatovic, 2015). Marginally more researchers focused on the impact of AEE for physical activity behavior (Calitri, Lowe, Eves, \& Bennett, 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2010; Hyde, Elavsky, Doerksen, \& Conroy, 2012). The extant studies mainly focused on the quality of AEE and the associated quantity of exercise (exercise much or little; Bluemke et al., 2010; Calitri et al., 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2012). In sum, there is still a dramatic lack of empirical knowledge, when applying dual-process theories to exercising behavior, even though these theories have proven to be successful in explaining behavior in many other health-relevant domains like eating, drinking or smoking behavior (e.g. Hofmann et al., 2008). The main goal of the present dissertation was to collect empirical evidence for the influence of AEE on exercise behavior and to expand the so far exclusively correlational studies by experimentally controlled studies. By doing so, the ongoing debate on a paradigm shift from controlled and deliberative influences of exercise behavior towards approaches that consider automatic and affective influences (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015) should be encouraged. All three conducted publications are embedded in dual-process theorizing (Gawronski \& Bodenhausen, 2006, 2014; Strack \& Deutsch, 2004). These theories offer a theoretical framework that could integrate the established controlled variables of exercise behavior explanation and additionally consider automatic factors for exercise behavior like AEE. Taken together, the empirical findings collected suggest that AEE play an important and diverse role for exercise behavior. They represent exercise setting preferences, are a cause for short-term exercise decisions and are decisive for long-term exercise adherence. Adding to the few already present studies in this field, the influence of (positive) AEE for exercise behavior was confirmed in all three presented publications. Even though the available set of studies needs to be extended in prospectively studies, first steps towards a more complete picture have been taken. Closing with the beginning of the synopsis: I think that time is right for a change of perspectives! This means a careful extension of the present theories with controlled evaluations explaining exercise behavior. Dual-process theories including controlled and automatic evaluations could provide such a basis for future research endeavors in exercise psychology.},
  language  = {en}
}