Objective: Women are often less likely to engage in strength training than men, despite the health positives which this can confer. This disparity has been presented, at least in part, as a result of body image concerns - namely women are concerned about how they will look, including wanting to avoid becoming muscular or masculine. However, there are examples of women who are engaged in strength development but seem to experience less such image concerns. One environment where this has been observed is within the CrossFit community.
Methods: In response to a snowball sample, 161 CrossFit participants completed an online survey about body image and muscularity.
Results: Data indicated that women who participate in CrossFit are more motivated to develop strength and report to be more satisfied with their appearance compared to expected norms.
Conclusion: The more apparently gender-neutral training paradigm, such as that offered in CrossFit, is suggested as a possible key to helping more women into regular exercise participation in general but strength and conditioning in particular.
Keywords: Weightlifting, Gender, Body image, Muscularity, Exercise
Women’s body image has an influence on how or if, women engage in sport1,2. Unfortunately, standards of traditional feminine beauty can often reinforce an ideal body shape that is incompatible with sport. These ideals are often further bolstered by a negative public image for muscular frames and competitive drive in women athletes which are seen as stereotypically masculine.
Whether
image issues are the sole reason or just one of several contributory factors,
there is little doubt that some factor or combination of factors is acting to
limit activity participation for women. For example, research commissioned by
Sport England in 2014 highlighted that woman continued to find being involved
in sport an uneasy challenge, with 2 million fewer women than men playing sport
on a regular basis3.
Over ten years later, despite the application of specific, much heralded and
generally praised initiatives4,
the discrepancy has only narrowed to 1.5 million, a change which should be
viewed against a parallel drop in male participation5. The issues raised by this research
echo the messages of other investigations on the gender gap in sport and
further highlight that women are often limited by fears about negative
appearance judgments from others6.
Indeed, it is disappointing that, despite efforts towards gender equality in
sport, there does not seem to be a great deal of improvement on the issues
highlighted in the late-20th century, such as concerns over how
athletic body shapes and muscularity in women are accepted7-9, socially mediated difficulties with
being seen as aggressive or competitive10,11 and the challenge of
fulfilling the demands of both sport and femininity12.
Indeed,
when discussing women in sport, the issue of body image is inescapable. Often,
women become involved in sport or fitness primarily to lose weight13, but can express fears of becoming too
muscular14. While
there is some evidence that, as
women become more involved in sport, their body image improves, there are also
women who remain highly critical of their own bodies, even as athletes15. The perceptions (we would argue, often
misperceptions) which exercising women experience are frequently at the heart
of their personal concerns which can, in turn, impact on adherence and ongoing
commitment to this crucial health habit.
Of
course, and thankfully, such issues are not universal. Female athletes can
express more satisfaction with their bodies16, describe performance as more important
than appearance17
and feel less constrained by limiting, gender specific beliefs about body shape
and size18. Yet,
clearly and unfortunately, this is not true for all women in sport. For
example, Stewart and Pullen17
describe a track and field team which prized muscular frames, yet who were also
less confident outside of their sport setting and could express concern over
how they looked in competition.
Therefore,
given that body image for women in sport is far from straight forward, it is
clear that, to encourage women into sport, they must find alternative forms of
body image and identities less influenced by social norms of traditional
feminine beauty. These shifts seem essential and are sold by Sport England’s
#ThisGirlCan campaign5,
which depicts women of all shape and size engaged in physical activity. Indeed
and clearly contrary to stereotype, the campaign specifically showcases women
sweating, looking uncomfortable and those with bodies outside of the thin,
toned ideal often prized by society and media. While the campaign offers some
welcome examples of positive role models and messages, however, how women can accomplish the shift
from being concerned with appearance to celebrating performance is less clear.
There
are some activities which may provide such an impetus, however. Recently, the
UK has seen the growth of the fitness movement of CrossFit. Comprised of a
mixture of Olympic lifting, gymnastics and various conditioning movements,
CrossFit aims to build a broad base of overall fitness through functional
movements19. Another
key difference is that CrossFit takes a gender-neutral approach within a group
exercise format. This approach asks women and men to complete the same
training, scaled to their individual abilities. All participants are encouraged
to develop positive attitudes towards competition, tracking performance and
developing strength.
Notably
however and despite this encouragingly egalitarian approach, Partridge, Knapp
and Massengale20
found a difference in the motivations between men and women taking part in
CrossFit. Men’s goals were more related to performance and competition with
others, while women’s motivations were more related to mastery. Importantly,
women’s mastery goals were geared towards avoiding looking inept or not good
enough. Thus, while the focus in their study was not specifically about body
image per se, the themes of appearance and the judgement of others were still
evident. Considering what is known about the impediments for women entering
sport, it might be reasonable to infer that fears about body judgements could
also play a part in this.
In
this regard, Salvatore and Marecek21 evaluated the broad range of reasons
that deter women from weightlifting. Their findings indicate that women avoided
weightlifting because of culturally bound beliefs that they would be evaluated
negatively by others for lifting weights and while using strength training
equipment in a gym setting. Importantly, however, despite the strong
possibility that evaluation concerns like these are also held by women in CrossFit,
Partridge, et al20
found that participants with longer membership in CrossFit generally reported
performance goals over mastery goals. Thus, although it is impossible to
determine how goals might have changed over time from this study, it might be
worth considering that women found a way to be less constrained by appearance
evaluation concerns as they became more involved in CrossFit.
There
is also an emerging picture of CrossFit as a means of countering stereotypic
views. For example, Marluka9
remarks on how CrossFit offers an environment where female muscularity is
prized over thinness and performances praised over socially endorsed examples
of female beauty. Reflecting on these positives we wondered if whether, against
the barriers which sport women confront, CrossFit could offer some potential
solutions in terms of body image, providing stepping stones into sport. Additionally,
we questioned whether women find that their beliefs about muscularity might change
as they become more involved. And with involvement, whether women change their
general attitudes about sport.
Therefore,
the purpose of this investigation was to retrospectively examine the
perceptions, aspirations and general views of women as they commenced,
participated in and increasingly committed to CrossFit. Specifically, we were
interested in key image and motivational issues and how these were
moderated/mediated through experience of CrossFit. Such issues included:
· Concerns about body, appearance, self judgements on muscularity,
perceptions of other judgements on muscularity;
· Attitudes about sport and athletic ambitions.
2. Method
2.1. Measures
The
survey consisted of 74 questions and included the Multidimensional Body Self
Relations Questionnaire (MBRSQ22),
the Exercise Motivation Inventory (EMI23) items related to muscularity expanded
by Loze and Collins24
and demographic questions on sex, age, number of days trained per week and
length of time doing CrossFit.
2.2. MBRSQ
The
MBRSQ is a measure for assessing body image in terms of behaviors and beliefs
about body, appearance, health and fitness. The MBRSQ provides information on
the attitudes related to body and also on the degree to which participant
actions are orientated towards these attitudes, distinguishing between
cognitive and behavioral elements of body image25. Likert scale ratings are used to
determine the degree to which each statement applies. The MBRSQ includes an
attitudinal and behavioral for each of the four factors of Appearance, Fitness,
Health, Illness, along with ratings of Body Satisfaction, Overweight Preoccupation and Self-Classified
Weight. Reliability for each factor is acceptable, ranging between a=0.70 and a=0.90 (Table 1).
Table
1: Cronbach’s Alpha for MBSRQ, MBSRQ User
Manual, 3rd Edition, 2000.
|
|
MALES |
FEMALES | ||
|
CRONBACH'S
Alpha |
1-MONTH
re test |
CRONBACH’S
Alpha |
1-MONTH
re-test | |
|
APPEARANCE
EVALUATION |
0.88 |
0.81 |
0.88 |
0.91 |
|
APPEARANCE
ORIENTATION |
0.88 |
0.89 |
0.85 |
0.9 |
|
FITNESS
EVALUATION |
0.77 |
0.76 |
0.77 |
0.79 |
|
FITNESS
ORIENTATION |
0.91 |
0.73 |
0.9 |
0.94 |
|
HEALTH
EVALUATION |
0.8 |
0.71 |
0.83 |
0.79 |
|
HEALTH
ORIENTATION |
0.78 |
0.76 |
0.78 |
0.85 |
|
ILLNESS
ORIENTATION |
0.78 |
0.79 |
0.75 |
0.78 |
|
ADDITIONAL
SUBSCALES: | ||||
|
BODY
AREAS SATISFACTION |
0.77 |
0.86 |
0.73 |
0.74 |
|
OVERWEIGHT
PREOCCUPATION |
0.73 |
0.79 |
0.76 |
0.89 |
|
SELF-CLASSIFIED
WEIGHT |
0.7 |
0.86 |
0.89 |
0.74 |
2.3. EMI
The
EMI aims to clarify the relative importance of a range of motivations to
exercise in terms of fitness or body goals. Lowe and Collins (24) identified
that the original EMI lacked motivations related to muscular development. They
demonstrated the need for 4 additional items related specifically to
muscularity representing distinct factors from the original EMI. These
additional factors related to exercise motivation for developing strength,
gaining size, toning muscles and increasing muscle mass. Cronbach’s alpha for
the Muscular Development items demonstrated high internal reliability (a=.92). These 4 muscular development
questions were included in the present survey.
3. Procedure
3.1.
Data collection
CrossFit
facilities in the north of England were asked to share the study information
and survey link with members and social media posts provided information and
the survey link. Those who clicked on the survey link were presented with study
information and a statement that if they consented to take part, they could
proceed with the survey. The information explained that they could stop the
survey at any time. Only completed surveys were included in the analysis.
3.2.
Statistical analysis
EMI
scores and factors of the MBRSQ were compared with sex, age, length of
involvement in CrossFit and number of days training. Descriptive statistics
were examined to look for general trends, after which ANOVAs were used to look
further at the differences between sex, length of involvement, number of days
trained and EMI factor of ‘Strength’ and the MBRSQ factors of ‘Appearance Evaluation/Orientation’
and Body Satisfaction.
3.3.
Ethics
All
participants read an informed consent statement before proceeding to the
anonymous survey. Prior approval for the study was obtained from the University
of Central Lancashire’s review board before data collection.
4. Results
4.1.
Demographic variables
117
women and 45 men completed the survey. 40% of respondents were aged between
21-29, 32% were between 30-39, 20% were 40-49. 3 participants were aged 20 or
under and 8 were aged 50-59. 62% of respondents worked out between 5-7 days per
week. 33% had been doing CrossFit for 12-24 months. A further 29% had been
doing CrossFit for 24-48 months. 25% had been doing CrossFit for under 12
months.
4.2.
EMI variables
Descriptive
statistics on EMI factors highlighted that developing strength was rated higher
than the other factors for women (Table 2). Women in this study rated
strength as a greater motivating factor than Tone, Size or Muscle Mass. The
mean EMI-MD for women in this study was 3.304 (.075).
Table
2: Mean (sd) values on EMI Muscular Development
items.
|
|
Women |
Men |
|
Muscle Mass |
3.28 (1.21) |
3.43 (1.02) |
|
Strength |
4.20 (.935) |
4.14 (1.05) |
|
Tone |
3.87 (1.05) |
3.59 (1.15) |
|
Size |
1.86 (1.16) |
3.07 (1.30) |
A
more in-depth examination, using a 2 X 4 (Sex X Factor) ANOVA revealed
significant main effects for Factor (F(3, 474) =88.9. p<.001, ES = .36) and
a significant sex X factor interaction (F(3, 474)=18.3, p<.001, ES = .11).
Follow up Tukey tests showed this to be due to higher strength gain motivations
across all participants and the interaction as due to lower size gain motives
in women.
Further
analyses were conducted on the female data, regarding differences in motivation
relating to length of time in CrossFit, number of training day per week and
age. Using three one-way ANOVAs, no significant effects were found for length
of time in CrossFit or age, but women who trained 5-7 days per week were
significantly more motivated by strength than the other groups (F (2, 114) =
3.13, p< .05)).
4.3.
MBRSQ variables
MBSRQ
scores were compared to baseline scores from previous studies and the MBRSQ
manual (Cash, 2000). (See Table 3 for MBSRQ scores).
Table
3: EMI Mean (sd) and MBRSQ mean (sd) for women
participants in this survey compared with Mean (sd) of previous studies.
|
EMI, this
survey, women |
EMI,
previous study, women involved in resistance training | |
|
3.304 (.075) |
2.63 (.77) | |
|
MBSRQ factor |
This Study,
women |
Previous
Study, women |
|
Appearance
Evaluation |
3.411(.851) |
3.36 (.87) |
|
Appearance
Orientation |
2.986 (.633) |
3.91 (.60) |
|
Fitness
Evaluation |
3.655 (.795) |
3.48 (.97) |
|
Fitness
Orientation |
3.959 (.482) |
3.20 (.85) |
|
Body Areas
Satisfaction |
3.435 (.712) |
3.23 (.74) |
|
Overweight
preoccupation |
2.653 (.983) |
3.03 (.96) |