Decreasing sprint duration from 20 to 10 s during reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT) attenuates the increase in maximal aerobic capacity but has no effect on affective and perceptual responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have demonstrated that modifying the “classic” 6 × 30-s “all-out” sprint interval training protocol by incorporating either shorter sprints (6 × 10-s or 15-s sprints) or fewer sprints (e.g., 2 × 20-s sprints; reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT)) does not attenuate the training-induced improvements in maximal aerobic capacity. The aim of the present study was to determine if reducing the sprint duration in the REHIT protocol from 20 s to 10 s per sprint influences acute affective responses and the change in maximal aerobic capacity following training. Thirty-six sedentary or recreationally active participants (17 women; mean ± SD; age: 22 ± 3 years; body mass index: 24.5 ± 4.6 kg·m−2; maximal aerobic capacity: 37 ± 8 mL·kg−1·min−1) were randomised to a group performing a “standard” REHIT protocol involving 2 × 20-s sprints or a group who performed 2 × 10-s sprints. Maximal aerobic capacity was determined before and after 6 weeks of 3 weekly training sessions. Acute affective responses and perceived exertion were assessed during training. Greater increases in maximal aerobic capacity were observed for the group performing 20-s sprints (2.77 ± 0.75 to 3.04 ± 0.75 L·min−1; +10%) compared with the group performing 10-s sprints (2.58 ± 0.57 vs. 2.67 ± 3.04 L·min−1; +4%; group × time interaction effect: p < 0.05; d = 1.06). Positive affect and the mood state vigour increased postexercise, while tension, depression, and total mood disturbance decreased, and negative affect remained unchanged. Affective responses and perceived exertion were not altered by training and were not different between groups. In conclusion, reducing sprint duration in the REHIT protocol from 20 s to 10 s attenuates improvements in maximal aerobic capacity, and does not result in more positive affective responses or lower perceived exertion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".