Impact of High-Intensity Interval Duration on Perceived Exertion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: RPE is increasingly being considered as a viable tool beyond its original use for monitoring in-task exercise intensity. Research indicates that anticipated, in-task, and postexercise RPE values are often notably different from one another. An important new consideration is how perceptions are impacted by high-intensity interval training (HIT). This study aims to compare RPE responses before, during, and after continuous and HIT exercise trials. METHODS: Twenty (11 females and 9 males; mean ± SD age, 22 ± 4 yr) overweight (mean ± SD body mass index, 29 ± 3 kg·m(-2)) and unfit (mean ± SD V˙O2peak, 28 ± 5 mL·kg·min(-1)) participants completed a 20-min heavy continuous (HC) trial and three 24-min severe-intensity interval trials that utilized 1:1 work-to-recovery ratios: 30 s (Severe Interval-30), 60 s (Severe Interval-60), and 120 s (Severe Interval-120). Exertion was assessed using the Borg CR10 Scale. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Anticipated exertion was highest in the Severe Interval-120 trial (5.8 ± 2.0; P < 0.05) compared with other trials. Exertion increased from beginning to end in all trials (P < 0.05), with the greatest increases observed within the HC trial. Session RPE for the Severe Interval-120 trial (6.4 ± 2.3) was higher than those for all other trials (P < 0.05), and session RPE for the Severe Interval-30 trial (3.7 ± 1.8) was lower than that for the HC trial (4.9 ± 1.6; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that 30-s HIT protocols limit the perceptual drift that occurs during exercise, in comparison to HC exercise. Moreover, performing more intervals of shorter durations appears to produce lower postexercise RPE values than performing fewer intervals of longer duration and equal intensity. Because effort perception may influence behavior, these results could have implications for the prescription of interval training in overweight sedentary adults.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".