Examining the acceptability of interval and endurance exercise training protocols for promoting exercise participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to endurance training (ET), high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity interval training (MIIT) are time efficient methods of improving fitness. However, interval training is significantly more intense than ET and the acceptability of these protocols for increasing exercise participation is unclear. Thus, we examined 11 participants' (19.9±1.1 yrs) preference for and social cognitive response to each protocol (e.g. task and scheduling self-efficacy). Following a ramp test to determine peak work rate (PWR), participants completed, in random order, one session of HIIT (8x1min at 120% PWR, 2min recovery), MIIT (10x4min at 90% PWR, 2min recovery), and ET (30min+4x13min at 65% PWR, 2min recovery). In a survey two weeks after completing all 3 protocols, 44% of participants preferred HIIT and 44% preferred ET. Repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc tests revealed that participants' anticipated enjoyment, affective attitudes, and task and scheduling self-efficacy were greater for HIIT and ET vs. HIIT, p
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".