Abstract
Universal exercise recommendations for adults neglect individual preferences, changing constraints, and their potential impact on associated health benefits. A recent proposal suggests replacing the standardized World Health Organisation (WHO) exercise recommendations for healthy adults by co-designed interventions where individuals participate actively in the decisions about the selected physical activities and the effort regulation. This study contrasts the effects on mental health and interoceptive awareness of a co-designed and co-adapted exercise intervention with an exercise program based on the WHO recommendations for healthy adults. Twenty healthy adults (10 men and 10 women, 40-55 y.o.) participated voluntarily in the research. They were randomly assigned to a co-designed exercise intervention (CoD group) and a prescribed exercise program (WHO group). Supervised online by specialized personal trainers, both programs lasted 9 weeks and were equivalent in volume and intensity. The effects of the exercise intervention were tested through personal interviews, questionnaires (DASS-21 and MAIA) and a cardiorespiratory exercise test. Intragroup differences (pre-post) were assessed using the Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test and intergroup differences through Student's t-tests. Effect sizes were calculated through Cohen's d. Interviews were analyzed through thematic analysis. Eleven participants completed the intervention (CoD = 8, WHO = 5). Both groups improved, but non significantly, their cardiorespiratory testing results, and no differences were found between them post-intervention. Mental health was only enhanced in the CoD group (p < 0.001), and interoceptive awareness improved in seven of the eight scales in the CoD group (p < 0.001) and only in 3 scales in the WHO group (p < 0.01). In conclusion, the co-designed intervention was more effective for developing mental health, interoceptive awareness, autonomy, and exercise self-regulation than the WHO-based exercise program.