Chasing a Phantom Dysfunction: A Position Paper on Current Methods in Exercise Addiction Research

Abstract

Exercise addiction has been investigated for almost half a decade in well over 1000 published papers. Studies adopt different terminologies like exercise addiction, overexercise, exercise dependence, compulsive exercise, obligatory exercise, and the like to refer to the same concept while creating conceptual confusion and rendering cross-study comparability challenging. The paradox is that fewer than ten research articles cover cases of clinical significance, yielding an extremely high ratio of publications to problematic cases. While there is evidence that significantly more clinically attention-meriting cases might exist, they surface in clinical practice rather than research settings. It is also peculiar that scholars search for a common path or shared etiology for exercise addiction, while each case, like those in substance use disorder, is unique, as also predicted by clinical models. Furthermore, the survey method uses scales yielding risk scores without diagnostic value. Most research in this direction, therefore, seems to be futile. Thus, it is not surprising that more than 10 years ago, the panel editing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) found insufficient evidence for exercise addiction being a mental dysfunction. As a result, exercise addiction has no clinical diagnostic criteria. This position paper aims to identify conceptual and methodological research barriers that hinder progress in this field, ultimately calling for a paradigm shift toward more productive research. In conclusion, the position of this paper is that most currently used research methodologies on exercise addiction are unsatisfactory and, consequently, a paradigm shift is urgently needed.