Affective and Enjoyment Responses to Sprint Interval Training in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sprint interval training (SIT) is characterized by intensity of "all-out" effort and superior time-efficiency compared to traditional moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and has been proposed as one viable solution to address the commonly reported barrier of lack of time for physical activity. While substantial physiological benefits of participation in SIT have been well-documented, the psychological responses to SIT are less clear. No systematic review has been conducted thus far to respond to the assumption that its supramaximal intensity will induce adverse feelings. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to synthesize studies analyzing affective and enjoyment responses to SIT and to compare the responses to SIT with MICT and other high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols with lower intensities. After searching relevant databases up until 22nd March 2021, twenty-five studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the present review. Random effect meta-analysis using the pooled data demonstrated that SIT induced similar post-exercise affective valences during the training compared to MICT and HIIT, but lower affective valences immediately post-exercise compared to MICT. Moreover, affective responses during SIT decreased to negative valences according to the results from most included studies, while low-volume SIT protocols with shorter sprint duration and repetitions induced more positive affective responses. Level of enjoyment after SIT were positive and were comparable to MICT or HIIT. Overall, the results from the existing literature indicate that SIT might cause unpleasant feelings during the training and be perceived less pleasurable than MICT immediately post training but could be a comparably enjoyable modality for healthy individuals in relation to MICT or HIIT, despite its supramaximal intensity. Low-volume SIT may be a realistic option for individuals seeking a time-efficient workout with comparable affective responses to MICT or HIIT. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO], Identifier [CRD42021284898].
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".