Enjoyment And Affective Responses To High-intensity Interval Training In Overweight Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological benefits of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) are well-established and indicate great potency for cardiometabolic effects. Research is now establishing that HIIT is more pleasurable than relatively intense continuous exercise, while investigations comparing HIIT to lower intensity continuous exercise is less available. PURPOSE: Investigate the affective and enjoyment responses to continuous and interval exercise in overweight and insufficiently active adults. METHODS: 16 overweight-to-obese participants (9 female, 7 male; mean BMI = 28, mean VO2 peak = 34 ml/kg/min) completed four counterbalanced trials comprised of a 30-minute continuous trial at 33% peak power (CONT) and three 20-minute interval trials that alternated between 85% and 15% peak power using 1:1 work-to-recovery ratios: 15 secs (INT-15), 30 secs (INT-30), and 60 seconds (INT-60). RESULTS: Data was analyzed using RM ANOVA and pairwise comparisons. Affect declined during the INT-60 trial (p < 0.01; 1.7 ± 1.7 to 0.6 ± 1.8; ES = 0.6) but was preserved during all other trials (p > 0.05; ES < 0.3). Similarly, enjoyment declined during the INT-60 trial (p < 0.05; 3.3 ± 1.1 to 2.8 ± 1.4; ES = 0.4) but was preserved during all other trials (p > 0.05; ES < 0.2). Comparison across trials near the end of exercise indicated that affect was lower in the INT-60 trial than all other trials (p < 0.05) and that enjoyment was lower in the INT-60 trial than INT-30 and INT-15 trials (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that HIIT trials composed of relatively short interval segments produce more positive affect and enjoyment than longer interval trials and responses that are more like those observed during longer continuous trials performed at low-to-moderate intensities. These results provide justification for the utilization of shorter interval trials as a relatively time-efficient alternative to lower intensity continuous exercise when maintenance of positive psychological states is a desired outcome.
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".