Dataset Information

High-Intensity Interval Training Elicits Higher Enjoyment than Moderate Intensity Continuous Exercise.

ABSTRACT: Exercise adherence is affected by factors including perceptions of enjoyment, time availability, and intrinsic motivation. Approximately 50% of individuals withdraw from an exercise program within the first 6 mo of initiation, citing lack of time as a main influence. Time efficient exercise such as high intensity interval training (HIIT) may provide an alternative to moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICT) to elicit substantial health benefits. This study examined differences in enjoyment, affect, and perceived exertion between MICT and HIIT. Twelve recreationally active men and women (age = 29.5 ± 10.7 yr, VO2max = 41.4 ± 4.1 mL/kg/min, BMI = 23.1 ± 2.1 kg/m2) initially performed a VO2max test on a cycle ergometer to determine appropriate workloads for subsequent exercise bouts. Each subject returned for two additional exercise trials, performing either HIIT (eight 1 min bouts of cycling at 85% maximal workload (Wmax) with 1 min of active recovery between bouts) or MICT (20 min of cycling at 45% Wmax) in randomized order. During exercise, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), affect, and blood lactate concentration (BLa) were measured. Additionally, the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) was completed after exercise. Results showed higher enjoyment (p = 0.013) in response to HIIT (103.8 ± 9.4) versus MICT (84.2 ± 19.1). Eleven of 12 participants (92%) preferred HIIT to MICT. However, affect was lower (p<0.05) and HR, RPE, and BLa were higher (p<0.05) in HIIT versus MICT. Although HIIT is more physically demanding than MICT, individuals report greater enjoyment due to its time efficiency and constantly changing stimulus.

Trial registration

NCT:02981667.

SUBMITTER: Thum JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5226715 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-Intensity Interval Training Elicits Higher Enjoyment than Moderate Intensity Continuous Exercise.

Thum Jacob S JS Parsons Gregory G Whittle Taylor T Astorino Todd A TA

PloS one 20170111 1

Exercise adherence is affected by factors including perceptions of enjoyment, time availability, and intrinsic motivation. Approximately 50% of individuals withdraw from an exercise program within the first 6 mo of initiation, citing lack of time as a main influence. Time efficient exercise such as high intensity interval training (HIIT) may provide an alternative to moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICT) to elicit substantial health benefits. This study examined differences in enjoyment, ...[more]

PMID: 28076352

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionExercise at high intensity may cause lower affective responses toward exercise compared with moderate intensity exercise. We aimed to elucidate affective valence and enjoyment in high- and moderate-high interval exercise.MethodsTwenty recreationally active participants (9 females, 11 males, age range: 20-51 years) underwent three different treadmill running exercise sessions per week over a 3-week period, in randomized order; (1) CE70: 45 min continuous exercise at 70% of heart rate maximum (HRmax), (2) INT80: 4 × 4 min intervals at 80% of HRmax, (3) INT90: 4 × 4 min intervals at 90% of HRmax. Pre-tests included graded submaximal steady state intensities and a test to exhaustion for determining peak oxygen uptake and HRmax. Affective valence (pleasure/displeasure) was measured before, during and after the sessions using the Feeling Scale (FS). Enjoyment was assessed before and after the sessions applying the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) and during the sessions using the Exercise Enjoyment Scale (EES).ResultsThe participants felt lower pleasure (between-sessions effect: p = 0.02, p η2: 0.13) during INT90 sessions (FS: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.35-1.92) compared with INT80 (FS: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.62-3.08, p = 0.052) and CE70 sessions (FS: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.72-3.18, p = 0.03), with no differences between INT80 and CE70 sessions (p = 1.00). There were higher enjoyment after INT80 sessions (PACES: 101.5, 95% CI: 95.7-107.3) versus CE70 sessions (PACES: 91.3 95% CI: 85.5-97.1, p = 0.046), and no differences between INT90 (PACES: 98.2, 95% CI: 92.4-103.4) and CE70 (p = 0.29) or INT80 (p = 1.00). For enjoyment during exercise, CE70 were perceived more enjoyable, and INT80 and INT90 less enjoyable in week 2 (EES: week x session: p = 0.01, p η2: 0.11; CE70: 4.3, 95% CI: 3.6-4.9, INT80: 4.6, 95% CI: 3.9-5.2, INT90: 4.0, 95% CI: 3.4-4.7) and 3 (EES: CE70: 4.2, 95% CI: 3.7-4.8, INT80: 4.8, 95% CI: 4.2-5.3, INT90: 4.3, 95% CI: 3.8-4.9) than in week 1 (EES: CE70: 3.5, 95% CI: 3.0-4.0, INT80: 5.0, 95% CI: 4.5-5.5, INT90: 4.5, 95% CI: 4.0-5.0).ConclusionThe negative affective consequences associated with high intensity interval exercise can be alleviated by keeping the intensity at or around 80% of HRmax while preserving the beneficial enjoyment responses associated with interval exercise.

Project description:To date, there are several knowledge gaps on how to properly prescribe concurrent training to achieve the best dose-response, especially regarding the optimal intensity or volume of the aerobic component. Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze the effects of different aerobic exercise modes and intensities [i.e. aerobic high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous aerobic training (MICT) combined with a resistance training (RT) program] on metabolic outcomes in participants with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Thirty-nine men and women (67.0 ± 6.7 years) volunteered to a 12-weeks exercise intervention (3 week-1, 50 min/session) and were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) RT plus MICT (RT+MICT) (2 males; 11 females); (b) RT plus HIIT (RT+HIIT) (4 males; 9 females); and (c) control group (CON) - without formal exercise (4 males; 9 females). Intensity was established between 60 and 70% of maximum heart rate (HRmax) in RT+MICT and ranged from 55-65% to 80-90% HRmax in the RT+HIIT group. Dependent outcomes included morphological, metabolic and hemodynamic variables. Both training groups improved waist circumference (RT+MICT: P = 0.019; RT+HIIT: P = 0.003), but not body weight, fat mass or fat-free mass (P ? 0.114). RT+HIIT group improved fasting glucose (P = 0.014), low density lipoprotein [LDL (P = 0.022)], insulin (P = 0.034) and homeostatic model assessment (P = 0.028). RT+MICT group reduced triglycerides (P = 0.053). Both exercise interventions did not change high sensitivity C-reactive protein, glycated hemoglobin, high density lipoprotein and total cholesterol, systolic, diastolic or mean arterial blood pressure (P ? 0.05). The CON group reduced the LDL (P = 0.031). This trial suggests that short-term exercise mode and intensity may differently impact the metabolic profile of individuals with MetS. Further, our data suggests that both concurrent trainings promote important cardiometabolic gains, particularly in the RT+HIIT. Nonetheless, due to the small-to-moderate effect size and the short-term intervention length, our data suggests that the intervention length also has an important modulating role in these benefits in older adults with MetS. Therefore, more research is needed to confirm our results using longer exercise interventions and larger groups.

Project description:Poststroke guidelines recommend moderate-intensity, continuous aerobic training (MCT) to improve aerobic capacity and mobility after stroke. High-intensity interval training (HIT) has been shown to be more effective than MCT among healthy adults and people with heart disease. However, HIT and MCT have not been compared previously among people with stroke.The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and justification for a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing HIT and MCT in people with chronic stroke.A preliminary RCT was conducted.The study was conducted in a cardiovascular stress laboratory and a rehabilitation research laboratory.Ambulatory people at least 6 months poststroke participated.Both groups trained 25 minutes, 3 times per week, for 4 weeks. The HIT strategy involved 30-second bursts at maximum-tolerated treadmill speed alternated with 30- to 60-second rest periods. The MCT strategy involved continuous treadmill walking at 45% to 50% of heart rate reserve.Measurements included recruitment and attendance statistics, qualitative HIT acceptability, adverse events, and the following blinded outcome variables: peak oxygen uptake, ventilatory threshold, metabolic cost of gait, fractional utilization, fastest treadmill speed, 10-Meter Walk Test, and Six-Minute Walk Test.During the 8-month recruitment period, 26 participants consented to participate. Eighteen participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the HIT group (n=13) or the MCT group (n=5). Eleven out of the 13 HIT group participants attended all sessions. Participants reported that HIT was acceptable and no serious adverse events occurred. Standardized effect size estimates between groups were moderate to very large for most outcome measures. Only 30% of treadmill speed gains in the HIT group translated into overground gait speed improvement.The study was not designed to definitively test safety or efficacy.Although further protocol optimization is needed to improve overground translation of treadmill gains, a definitive RCT comparing HIT and MCT appears to be feasible and warranted.

Project description:IntroductionSince adolescents with obesity are prone to bone fragility during weight loss, the aim was to compare the impact of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on bone density, geometry, and strength.MethodsSixty-one adolescents were randomly assigned to 2 cycling trainings (HIIT and MICT) and a control (CTR, without training) group. Anthropometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with hip structural analysis and the trabecular bone score (TBS) were assessed before and after the 16-week intervention.ResultsBody mass index (BMI) and fat mass (FM) percentage decreased at T1 versus T0 in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p = 0.01 for MICT), though to a larger extent in HIIT (p < 0.05). Total body bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) increased in both training groups (p < 0.001), but to a greater extent in HIIT for BMC (p < 0.05). Lumbar spine BMD and BMC increased in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p < 0.01 for MICT), with a time × group interaction between HIIT and CTR (p < 0.05) only. TBS increased in both training groups (p < 0.01 for HIIT, p < 0.05 for MICT). Hip BMD and BMC increased in both HIIT (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) and MICT (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05). At the narrow neck (NN), endocortical diameter, width (p < 0.01), cross-sectional moment of inertia, and section modulus (Z) (p < 0.05) increased only in the HIIT group, such as BMD and Z (p < 0.05) at the intertrochanteric region (IT) and average cortical thickness (p < 0.001) and width (p < 0.05) at the femoral shaft. At the NN and IT, the buckling ratio decreased only in the HIIT group (p < 0.05), predicting higher resistance to fracture.ConclusionsIn addition to inducing greater BMI and FM percentage decreases in comparison to MICT, HIIT improves multisite bone density, geometry, and strength, which heighten the justification for HIIT as part of weight loss interventions in adolescents with obesity.

Dataset Information

High-Intensity Interval Training Elicits Higher Enjoyment than Moderate Intensity Continuous Exercise.

Trial registration

Publications

High-Intensity Interval Training Elicits Higher Enjoyment than Moderate Intensity Continuous Exercise.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets