MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Affective Responses to High and Moderate Intensity Interval and Continuous Exercise in Adults with Asthma

2016· article· en· W2462927308 on OpenAlexaff
Carley O’Neill, Shilpa Dogra

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPerceived exertionPsychologyAsthmaPhysical therapyPerceptionIntensity (physics)Exercise intensityVisual analogue scaleMedicineInternal medicineHeart rateSocial psychologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjective enjoyment is an important component of exercise adherence; however, limited research exists on subjective measures of effort, dyspnea, and enjoyment for high intensity interval exercise (HIIE) in adults with exercise induced asthma (EIA). EIA is associated with an increase in dyspnea during exercise which may lead to greater perceptions of in-task effort and lesser physical activity enjoyment. PURPOSE: To examine in-task perceptions of effort, dyspnea, and affective feelings during HIIE, moderate intensity interval exercise (MIIE) and moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE) in adults with EIA. METHODS: Nine adults with EIA (age: 21.1 ± 3.2 years) completed the 3 exercise sessions in random order at least 72 hours apart. Protocols were as follows: HIIE (90% peak power output (PPO) for 1 minute, 10% PPO for 1 minute, repeated 10 times), MIIE (65% PPO for 1 minute, 10% PPO for 1 minute, repeated 10 times) and MICE (65% PPO for 20 minutes). Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), ratings of perceived dyspnea (RPD), and affective feelings (1-Item Feelings Scale, scale from-5 to 5, higher numbers indicate more positive experience) were monitored each minute during exercise. Participants also completed the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (scale from 1-126, higher numbers indicate more enjoyment) following each exercise protocol. RESULTS: RPE was significantly greater during MICE (12.9 ± 1.6) as compared to MIIE (9.3 ± 1.6, p=0.001) and HIIE (11.2 ± 1.7, p= 0.011). RPD was also significantly greater during MICE (3.9 ± 1.6) as compared to the MIIE (1.6 ± 0.9, p= 0.006) and HIIE (2.6 ± 1.1, p= 0.055). Affect was significantly greater in the last interval of MIIE (2.43 ± 1.4) compared to the end of MICE (-0.28 ± 3.9, p=0.46). A trend towards significance was observed for the last interval between MIIE and HIIE (0.43 ± 3.1, p=0.056). No differences in affect were observed between MICE and HIIE. Similar trends were noted when comparing average affect between protocols. Physical activity enjoyment scores did not differ between the MIIE (102.4 ± 4.6, NS), HIIE (103.8 ± 6.0, NS), compared to MICE (96.4 ± 6.3). CONCLUSION: Interval exercise is associated with lower perceived effort and dyspnea as well as greater affect when compared to MICE. Therefore interval exercise may be a more palatable prescription for those with EIA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→