The role of exercise modality on psychological, behavioral, and fitness outcomes among individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes: preliminary evidence from the CHOICE pragmatic randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To determine whether providing a choice between high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) within a 4-week diabetes prevention program may lead to greater perceived autonomy support, motivation regulation, free-living physical activity, and cardiorespiratory fitness 6 months post-intervention when compared to imposed exercise. Methods In a preliminary pragmatic randomized trial, 77 individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes ( M age =61.5 (±9.8) years; N females =58) were randomized to one of three exercise conditions: HIIT, MICT, or the choice thereof (CHOICE). Perceived autonomy support was assessed post-intervention. Changes in motivation, physical activity, and cardiorespiratory fitness were assessed 6 months post-intervention. Linear mixed models and Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons on estimated marginal means were used to derive effect estimates after adjusting for stratified allocation factors. Results Perceived autonomy support was not different among conditions [ F (2, 47)=0.068, p=0.934]. No effects were detected for motivation regulation, physical activity, or cardiorespiratory fitness ( ps >0.05). Participants in the CHOICE condition self-reported significantly more physical activity 6 months post-intervention compared to pre-intervention [ t (31)=2.922, p=0.019]. Improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness were seen in CHOICE [ t (65)=2.509, p=0.044] and MICT [ t (65)=3.492, p=0.003]. Conclusions Providing choice between HIIT and MICT did not significantly affect individuals’ perceived autonomy support or motivation regulation compared to imposed exercise. However, physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness improved over time for the CHOICE condition. Providing choice between HIIT and MICT may be a feasible exercise strategy among this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".