Psychological responses to HIIT and MICT over a 2-week progressive randomized trial among individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this secondary analysis study was to examine the affective and social cognitive responses to low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) over a progressive two-week supervised intervention for individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes. Ninety-nine adults that were low-active and overweight were randomized into one of two exercise conditions and had affective and social cognitive measures assessed before, during, and after intervention. Increases over time in post-exercise enjoyment, attitudes towards exercise, and intentions to exercise were noted for both HIIT and MICT conditions (ps <.05). The patterns of change in acute affective responses over the two-week intervention were consistent for both conditions, with participants in MICT reporting more positive in-task affect and affective attitudes throughout (ps <.001). Positive correlational relationships between affective and social cognitive responses were revealed throughout the intervention (ps <.05), highlighting the relationship between reflexive responses and reflective cognitions. Research is warranted to determine whether findings are a consequence of familiarization with exercise, whether such findings are translatable to real-world environments and non-progressive exercise protocols, and whether these reflexive responses and reflective cognitions are predictive of future exercise behaviour for individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".