High-intensity Intervals Are Associated With Relatively Positive Emotional Responses And Elevated Predictors Of Behaviour Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the factors that influence behaviour change and exercise adherence is important for optimizing exercise prescription. High intensity interval training is a time effective means of increasing aerobic fitness, however, the relationship between interval training and affective response (a predictor of behaviour change) is currently unknown. PURPOSE: To examine the affective response to high intensity training (HIT), moderate intensity training (MIT) and traditional endurance training (ET). METHODS: Eleven subjects (21 ± 2 yrs; 53 ± 11 ml/kg/min VO2peak) performed a ramp exercise test to volitional fatigue (peak work rate; PWR, 282 ± 54W). Each participant completed one session of HIT (8, 1-minute intervals at 120% PWR with 2 minute recovery), MIT (10, 4-minute intervals at 90% PWR with 2 minute recovery) and ET (90 minutes at 65% PWR) in random order. Emotional state was assessed by the Feeling Scale (-5, very bad; +5, very good) before the start, midway through, immediately post, 30-minutes post and 120-minutes post each protocol. Subjects also completed follow-up surveys that assessed protocol preference, enjoyment (1, not enjoyable; 7, very enjoyable), and implementation intentions (1, low intention; 7, high intention) 2 weeks following their last exercise protocol. RESULTS: At the midway point the emotional state of participants was lower (P<0.05) during MIT (-2.86 ± 1.76) than both ET (-1.05 ± 2.61) and HIT (-0.45 ± 2.02). There were no differences between HIT, MIT, or ET for emotional state at any other time point. The 2-week follow up indicated a preference for either HIT or END over MIT. HIT (3.73 ± 1.10) and ET (3.86 ± 1.92) were rated as more (P<0.05) enjoyable than MIT (2.45 ±1.37) while participants' intentions to implement an exercise protocols 2 days/week was higher (P<0.05) for both HIT (3.27 ± 1.42) and END (3.64 ± 1.63) than MIT (2.23 ± 1.29). CONCLUSION: Participants in this study had a higher emotional response, according to the feeling scale, at the midway point during HIT and ET. This higher emotional response during HIT and ET correlated with higher rates of enjoyment and intentions to implement an exercise protocol 2 days/week. Keywords: Emotional state, Feeling Scale, High Intensity Interval Training, Endurance Training, Moderate Intensity Interval Training,
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".