Affective and Enjoyment Responses to High-Intensity Interval Training in Overweight-to-Obese and Insufficiently Active Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has many known physiological benefits, but research investigating the psychological aspects of this training is limited. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the affective and enjoyment responses to continuous and high-intensity interval exercise sessions. Twenty overweight-to-obese, insufficiently active adults completed four counterbalanced trials: a 20-min trial of heavy continuous exercise and three 24-min HIIT trials that used 30-s, 60-s, and 120-s intervals. Affect declined during all trials (p < .05), but affect at the completion of trials was more positive in the shorter interval trials (p < .05). Enjoyment declined in the 120-s interval and heavy continuous conditions only (p < .05). Postexercise enjoyment was higher in the 60-s trial than in the 120-s trial and heavy continuous condition (p < .05). Findings suggest that pleasure and enjoyment are higher during shorter interval trials than during a longer interval or heavy continuous exercise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".