Key result
High-intensity interval training elicits a lower affective response during exercise versus moderate-intensity continuous training.
Why the study?
It was unclear how cardiovascular high-intensity interval training compares with moderate-intensity continuous training regarding psychosocial responses, motivation, and exercise enjoyment in individuals with chronic stroke.
Does high-intensity interval training improve motivation and enjoyment compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in individuals with chronic stroke?
RCT (n=71)
Does high-intensity interval training improve motivation and enjoyment compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in individuals with chronic stroke?
Effect estimate: Mean difference -1.18 (95% CI -1.90 to -0.47)
p-value: p=.002
In individuals with chronic stroke, 12 weeks of HIIT elicited equivalent motivation and post-exercise enjoyment compared to MICT, despite a lower affective response during the exercise sessions.
HIIT may reduce in-session pleasure in chronic stroke; extends RCT evidence on affective responses despite preserved motivation and enjoyment.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effect of cardiovascular high-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on psychosocial responses to exercise, motivation, and enjoyment, in individuals with chronic stroke. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of motivation and enjoyment outcomes collected from a randomized controlled trial (NCT03614585) comparing 12 weeks of HIIT vs MICT in participants with chronic stroke (6-60mo post-stroke) was conducted. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-one individuals (N=71) with chronic stroke (mean ± SD, age: 65.5 ± 8.4y, 19.4 ± 13.4mo post-stroke, 38% women) and mild disability (median ± interquartile range, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 1 ± 2). INTERVENTIONS: Twelve-week, 3 per week progressive cardiovascular HIIT or MICT program conducted on NuStep recumbent steppers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Motivation (Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3) was measured at weeks 1, 6, and 12. Enjoyment outcomes comprised of affective response (Feeling Scale) assessed at each training session, and post-exercise enjoyment (Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale) assessed at weeks 6 and 12. Linear mixed models, examining group, time and group × time point interactions in motivation constructs and composite scores, mean affective response per session, and post-exercise enjoyment were used to compare the effect of HIIT vs MICT. RESULTS: HIIT elicited a lower affective response (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.18 [-1.90 to -0.47]; P=.002), that also progressively declined during sessions, in contrast to MICT (group × time point interaction: F [2,63.5]=3.99, P=.02). HIIT and MICT did not elicit any significant difference between groups or change over time for post-exercise enjoyment or any motivation constructs (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower affective response during exercise, HIIT elicits equivalent motivation and post-exercise enjoyment compared to MICT. This study provides further support for the implementation of HIIT in stroke rehabilitation by demonstrating sustained responses of motivation and post-enjoyment. Future studies should consider potential strategies that positively reinforce these important psychosocial responses to implement HIIT in post-stroke rehabilitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodrigues et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Chronic stroke (n=71). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. Moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) was evaluated on Affective response during exercise (Mean difference -1.18, 95% CI -1.90 to -0.47, p=.002). High-intensity interval training elicited a lower affective response during exercise compared to moderate-intensity continuous training (mean difference -1.18; 95% CI -1.90 to -0.47; P=.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: