Affective Response To Sprint Interval Exercise In Adults With And Without Exercise-induced Bronchoconstriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIBC) often experience symptoms such as wheezing, coughing and shortness of breath during or following exercise; this may lead to greater perceptions of in-task effort and less enjoyment. Adults with EIBC report higher affect after performing high intensity interval exercise compared to moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE). PURPOSE: To examine in-task perceptions of effort, dyspnea, and affective feelings during a sprint interval exercise (SIE) and MICE session in adults with and without EIBC. METHODS: Participants with EIBC (aged 22.0±2.6) and participants without EIBC (aged (21.7±0.6) completed SIE (4 x 30 second sprints at 0.075kg/kg bodyweight, separated by 4.5 minutes of unloaded cycling) and MICE (65% peak power output for 20 minutes) sessions. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), ratings of perceived dyspnea (RPD) and 1-item feeling scale (1-FS) were monitored each minute during exercise. The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale was completed by participants following each exercise protocol. Participants were also asked if they preferred SIE or MICE after the second session. Sessions were completed in random order. RESULTS: Among those with EIBC, average RPE was not different during MICE (13.4±1.9) compared to SIE (11.5±0.5, p = 0.29), there were no differences in average RPD during MICE (4.5±1.4) compared to SIE (4.3±0.6, p = 0.81), average affect was greater during MICE (2.8±1.6) compared to SIE (2.0±1.5, p < 0.05), and differences in physical activity enjoyment scores for MICE (93.0±5.6) compared to SIE (77.0±4.6, p = 0.09) were approaching significance. There were no differences in RPD or affect between those with and without EIBC for either SIE or MICE. Those without EIBC reported higher RPE during SIE and had a higher enjoyment scores for SIE compared to those with EIBC. Two thirds of participants with EIBC preferred MICE and all participants without EIBC preferred MICE. CONCLUSION: SIE was associated with similar exertion and dyspnea but lower affect and enjoyment compared to MICE. Therefore, SIE may not be recommended for adherence to regular exercise in adults with EIBC.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".