Talk:Exercise addiction

Educational assignment
Educational assignment for Introduction to Abnormal Psychology at Linfield College--Vkraft (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, if I'm reading this page correctly, this is part of an assignment at Linfield College in Oregon, and St. Charles Community College in Missouri, and neither seem familiar with WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDMOS-- so how is this being coordinated? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy; this is the section that gives the names of the instructor and ambassadors. There's also an ambassador steering committee; Cindy's on that.  If you're interested in information about the overall education program I can find those links for you too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's Missouri, but now Oregon is in here too, so still, how is this being coordinated? I'm having a hard enough time keeping the text on track, and wonder if the two programs are working together.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandy, I am from Linfield College in Oregon and I tried contacting the students from Missouri but I have not heard back from them. So far there are four students from my school contributing to this article in coordination with our professor. Thank you for all of your work it has really helped us, we are all new to wikipedia and it has been a steep learning curve.--Vkraft (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed the part of Sandy's note that pointed out there were two assignments here. I believe the Oregon one is not coordinated via the USEP.  I'll leave notes for both instructors letting them know that two classes are both working on the same article, and will also let the USEP know -- perhaps we can provide on-campus support in Oregon.  The Oregon course page appears to be User:Tatompki/Introduction to Abnormal Psychology Wiki-Project, and per Tatompki's user page she is the instructor and was inspired by the APS Wikipedia initiative to run this course, rather than coming in through the USEP. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Over at Talk:Klazomania I'm dealing with another one where the professor is apparently not part of any program and doesn't read his talk page. This stuff is killing my watchlist, since a lot of neuropsych or TS/OCD-related articles I edit are getting hit by non-compliant editing from professors who don't know or explain policies. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
This article could be improved by providing some statistics about how many people suffer from exercise addiction habits. It could also be beneficial to provide some information about how exercise addiction is measured.(Andrewdewolf (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

Our Group Plans for this Article:

Section 1: History (Andrew) Increase in Exercise Addiction over the years?, Popularity of Exercise?, When this disorder was first diagnosed?, Common forms of exercising for addicts?

Section 2: DSM (Tori) Definition of Exercise Addiction, Qualifications for having an Exercise Addiction

Section 3: Biological Effects of Exercise (Tyler)

Section 4: Epidemiology (Dom) Who is at risk?

Section 5: Signs and Symptoms (Tori)

Section 6: Treatment (Tori) Preventative Treatment, Types of Therapy, Most Effective Method

Section 7: Comorbidity (Dom) Other related disorders

Resources: Using Linfield journal database for articles

--Vkraft (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Our group?
 * 2) I've not heard of the "Linfield journal database", but please be sure sources used meet WP:MEDRS (basically secondary peer-reviewed articles, avoid primary research).
 * 3) Please see WP:MEDMOS on content-- specifically, MEDMOS on sections.
 * On DSM, I think you mean "Diagnosis"
 * On biological effects, I think you may mean "Signs and symptoms"
 * On demographics, I think you mean "Epidemiology"
 * etc

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I added some of the information I found on this topic. I decided to combine the diagnosis and signs/symptoms sections. Let me know what you think.--Vkraft (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on Plan
Exercise addiction is not listed in the DSM so you may end up wanting to re-organize some of this accordingly and discuss what disorders seem relevant (e.g., anorexia nervosa, addictions) and where it might fit in (including whether it ever has been looked at as it's own syndrome). Additionally, you were to identify a short list of resources (not the database where you will find them) with the idea that this would inform your initial outline for the article that you've shared here. Use the next several weeks to learn as much as you can about the construct and keep modifying this outline as you reorganize, cut and add. Tatompki (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Faulty sourcing
Please review WP:MEDRS and Sources in biology and medicine; I have removed some lower quality sources and added sources compliant with Wikipedia medical sourcing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Behavioral Health Management
I can find no indication anywhere of what Behavioral Health Management (journal) is. It is cited here: and I can find nothing to indicate that's a peer-reviewed article, or what sort of journal it is. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cumella, Edward (September 2005). "The heavy weight of exercise addiction". Behavioral Health Management 25 (5): 26–31.


 * I just tried doing a search as well and found nothing, should this reference be removed??P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not until we get an idea what it is (but plagiarism should be checked for immediately on sources that aren't available online, since I've already found one instance). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a defunct magazine that was published between 1994 and 2005, and it was later merged with another publication in 2006 . It was published by Medquest Communications and was a periodical for medical professionals (i.e. trade magazine). Sounds like it was minimally peer reviewed. Froggerlaura (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism
I've commented out plagiarized text, that was added here. The rest of the text (from the Johnston source) should be reviewed for same. Please see WP:PARAPHRASE and this Dispatch. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for catching that I will be sure to mention this to my peers and make sure nothing else is plagiarized.--Vkraft (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Vkraft (I'm glad someone working on this article is reading the talk page)-- it would be helpful if you could check the rest of that same edit for plagiarism, since I don't have the source. Another helpful thing would be if editors working on this article would review the discussion above about the names we typically use for sections (see WP:MEDMOS and discussion above).  Also, we still don't know what these "Linfield database" papers are, and they appear to be unreviewed.  Since they are behind a paywall and others can't check, we need some idea of what they are-- they look like press-release-type college papers to me, and I don't have any indication we should be using them when there is plenty of info in peer-reviewed articles at PubMed (see WP:MEDRS).  Thanks for using the talk page-- it helps!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Assessment section also seems to have been copied from here. This was revealed  by a Copyscape search. I have hidden this text for now. Graham Colm (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on Rough Draft
Solid start although VERY concerning that portions of what you wrote have been deleted due to plagiarism. If this happens again you are in danger of losing all points for this assignment. Thus, make sure that you have read the peer-reviewed article enough times to truly understand the points being made so that you may then describe in your own words. In general, you have a good outline but there are several areas where you can expand:
 * Review different assessment tools that exist to measure exercise addiction (e.g., Exercise Addiction Inventory)
 * How does one differentiate between commitment (e.g., in serious athletes) and addiction?
 * What is the history of this construct - i.e., when was it first studied, how has thinking evolved about it, what does the DSM-5 working group have to say about it (or in general about behavioral addictions); you may want to at least pay mention to the fact that there is some controversy over whether behavioral addictions reflect addictive behavior, compulsive behavior or impulse control problems. You can read the wikipedia article on behavioral addictions and link to this for more information (if you feel they do a good job of exploring this debate)
 * Under "Causes" what types of risk factors are associated with exercise addiction (you mention athletics but are there certain personality traits and/or environmental characteristics thought to increase risk); have there been any cross-cultural studies of this construct?
 * What are the rates... referenced but not included in epidemiology

Finally, under "Causes" I don't think you want the word corollary? Tatompki (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
In the Classification Section, you stated "With an addiction, most people enjoy what they are doing, but with a compulsion, instead they feel the need to complete the task." I feel as though this sentence is phrased awkwardly, and because it's awkward, the reader would most likely jump over it and not take it as seriously. With an addiction you stated that most people enjoy what they are doing, could you give an example of a classic condition/addiction that people would recognize? In both addiction and compulsion, the person suffering feels the need to complete the task. So stating that one is different from the other, is misleading and often is incorrect.

In the Symptoms Section, you stated "An increase in exercise that may be labeled as detrimental." By stating the difference between what is healthy and detrimental, a person has a better understanding of what to look out for. Just by stating detrimental, is too vague of a term; specifics would help.

Causes: Be careful in your explanation because correlation does not imply causation.

Treatment: You could add a picture that would help illustrate what would happen if this goes untreated.

(Aspadoni206 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

For the Classification section I would say that some general rewording of the sentences would be very helpful, especially in the last senctence. An addiction and a compulsion are different things, but it was hard to tell exactly what you were trying to accomplish with that sentence. If you could give an example of how an addiction to exercise and someone who just has a compulsion to exercise are different I think it would be very helpful in making that point clearer to the reader.

In Signs and Symptoms, the main thing is describing what "detrimental" means. If there is any research that can give a better definition of detrimental or time/intensity qualification into what makes it detrimental that would be very helpful since detrimental can be taken to be something different by different people. Possibly in this section talk about what type of exercise(s) the person does or if it varies between the individual suffering from the addiction.

Finally, I think comorbidity and causes could be combined into one section because the presence of an eating disorder seems like it could be a cause of suffering from the addiction. However, all in all, I think that the article was well written for a first draft and after some minor editing of those sections and punctuation errors it will work great.

Nbarton10 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I felt like this article needs more links, such as to specifics like obsessive, compulsive, comorbidity, addictive, quantitative/qualitative etc. Also, you might want to think about adding more information about eating disorders, perhaps in the "cause" section. Not too much info, but I think if there was something there about EDs, it could be a stronger article. Pictures might also make it stronger, perhaps what injuries can happen when one exercises too much. Also, in the Signs and symptoms #5, is "trauma" referred to physical or emotional trauma? Jessilucas (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Self Article Review
I think all the comments that were noted would really help out our article. When looking at other group's articles, the use of pictures made it more appealing and provided visual examples, which we could also include. For epidemiology I can try to find some statistics and include examples of exercise addiction behaviors. I will also go into more detail with the comorbidity of eating disorders and possible other disorders as well. Overall I think each section could go more in depth, especially since a lot of it got deleted. Keep it up group, we can do this! Dlaborte (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments I believe we can all go a little more in depth in each heading area. I will define detrimental in the signs and symptoms heading and try and expand on the section as well.--Vkraft (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we could use a little more to introduce the assessment section so I'll work on that. This can add to some of that depth we need. (Andrewdewolf (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

All the comments are helpful and noted. I agree that depth needs to be added. Definitions and more links will be added. Tjkimmett (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
I thought your article was well written. All of the sections were written in ways that made them easy to understand and they all flowed very well. However, each section could use a little more information and depth into the particular topics. Also under the signs and symptoms section, are there only five indicators? Maybe be a little more specific with the symptoms.

Faulty sourcing, clarifications needed
I have attempted a copyedit, removing some text that didn't say anything (written like a term paper, filler words), but many of the statements in this article are so vague that I can't decipher how to fix them or what they are trying to say. Primary sources are being used incorrectly in the article-- please see WP:MEDRS (secondary reviews are preferred to primary studies). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I took out the Villella statistics and I will try to find some rates that relate to a broader population. We will try and utilize the secondary sourcing as we go through and add information to fill in the gaps.--Vkraft (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional Feedback
You've made some improvements in this second draft. However, there are still many areas in need of improvement. First, several areas still invite needed expansion given that they currently are vague and/or tough to follow. For example, under "Classification" the first sentence is awkward and needs to be more clearly articulated. It would be better to describe that most definitions include a range of symptoms and then go on to describe more fully each of these (preferably providing examples). This provides the reader a clear sense of what is meant by withdrawal, "exercise buzz," etc. Similarly, the section on "Prognosis" is sparse. What are some of the negative effects? Second, there are still quite a few sentences with grammatical errors (e.g., "exercise addiction is thought to BE..." missing the word "be") or sections that need clarification ("comorbidity section - especially the first several sentences - not exactly sure what you are trying to say). Third, there are still some areas where you need to cite (e.g., high-risk groups).  Finally, Sandy Georgia notes that you should be making use of review articles, calling into question your use of primary sources.  You need to respond - either by making necessary changes or describing in response (and in the article) that little is known about the topic, while acknowledging limitations of existing sources.  For example, in the "Epidemiology" section you describe an adolescent study which is fine if this is the only estimate of prevalence rates in youth.  However, this is much stronger if you provide the reader first with an estimated range based on research with adults and/or college students. Your writing suggests this is known but doesn't describe which leads one to call into question the source you chose. Make sense?Tatompki (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Notable people affected
Are there any such people, and are they Olympians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.44.20 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at St. Charles Community College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)