Do Exercise Pattern and Intensity Influence Affective and Enjoyment Responses in Active Adults? A Secondary Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to compare the ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), affective (Feeling Scale), and remembered enjoyment (Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale) responses following different exercise intensities/patterns and to investigate possible associations with physiological parameters in active adults. In a randomized crossover trial, 16 active adults (29.9 ± 3.2 years; 8 males/8 females) performed three different conditions: moderate continuous exercise (MCE) at 70% lactate threshold (LT), heavy continuous exercise (HCE) at 10% of the difference between LT and VO2 peak, and heavy interval exercise (HIE) wherein intensity matched HCE but performed as 1-minute on:off with stationary rest in between. RPE (CR10) and affect were evaluated during exercise while remembered enjoyment was assessed at the end of each exercise session. Average RPE was significantly different (p = .001; ηp2 = .744) between all three exercise modalities (MCE = 2.6 ± 0.8, HCE = 5.1 ± 1.0; HIE = 3.5 ± 0.9; p ≤.001). Average affect during exercise was also significantly different (p = .001; ηp2 = .427) with post hoc testing revealing lower affect for HCE compared to MCE (p = .002) and HIE (p = .008). Similar results were observed for affect nadir (lowest affect during exercise; MCE = 3.1 ± 1.3; HCE = 1.2 ± 1.7; HIE = 2.4 ± 1.6; p = .001; ηp2 = .470). Remembered enjoyment was not statistically different between modalities (MCE = 98 ± 18; HCE = 96 ± 17; HIE = 100 ± 16; p = .468; ηp2 = .049), but more people preferred HCE (10/16; 62.5%) compared with both HIE (4/16; 25%) and MCE (2/16; 12.5%) (p = .039): Despite the higher average RPE and lower affect during HCE, no difference was observed for remembered exercise enjoyment, and active individuals seem to prefer this exercise modality compared with HIE or MCE.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".