Subjective well-being and exercise in the second half of life: a critical review of theoretical approaches

Research has shown repeatedly that the “feeling better” effect of exercise is far more moderate than generally claimed. Examinations
of subgroups in secondary analyses also indicate that numerous further variables influence this relationship. One reason for
inconsistencies in this research field is the lack of adequate theoretical analyses. Well-being output variables frequently
possess no construct definition, and little attention is paid to moderating and mediating variables. This article integrates
the main models in an overview and analyzes how secondary analyses define well-being and which areas of the construct they
focus on. It then applies a moderator and/or mediator framework to examine which person and environmental variables can be
found in the existing explanatory approaches in sport science and how they specify the influence of these moderating and mediating
variables. Results show that the broad understanding of well-being in many secondary analyses makes findings difficult to
interpret. Moreover, physiological explanatory approaches focus more on affective changes in well-being, whereas psychological
approaches also include cognitive changes. The approaches focus mostly on either physical or psychological person variables
and rarely combine the two, as in, for example, the dual-mode model. Whereas environmental variables specifying the treatment
more closely (e.g., its intensity) are comparatively frequent, only the social support model formulates variables such as
the framework in which exercise is presented. The majority of explanatory approaches use simple moderator and/or mediator
models such as the basic mediated (e.g., distraction hypothesis) or multiple mediated (e.g., monoamine hypotheses) model.
The discussion draws conclusions for future research.