Key result
High-intensity interval training did not result in significantly different affect (mean score 2.6 vs 2.5), perceived exertion, or enjoyment compared with continuous training in healthy women.
Why the study?
High-intensity interval training has physiological benefits similar to or greater than continuous training, but there are mixed results regarding how HIIT protocols influence affect.
Does high-intensity interval training alter acute affective responses, perceived exertion, or enjoyment compared to continuous training in healthy women?
Does high-intensity interval training alter acute affective responses, perceived exertion, or enjoyment compared to continuous training in healthy women?
High-intensity interval training and continuous training elicit similar affective responses, perceived exertion, and enjoyment levels in healthy young women.
Affective responses to HIIT protocols remain variable; leaves open optimal selection for adherence in exercise programs.
Alicea, SK, Parrott, AD, Manos, TM, and Kwon, YS. Comparison of the affective responses to continuous training and high-intensity interval training protocols: application of the dual-mode model. J Strength Cond Res 35(11): 3069-3075, 2021-High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is time-efficient and has physiological benefits similar to or greater than that of continuous training (CT); however, there are mixed results regarding how HIIT protocols influence affect. The purpose of this study was to compare acute affective responses between HIIT and CT protocols over time using the Dual-Mode Model (DMM) as a theoretical framework. Subjects included 12 healthy women (aged 19-28 years) who completed a HIIT protocol consisting of a 2-minute work interval (100% V̇o2max) followed by a 2-minute rest interval (∼55% V̇o2max), and a CT protocol set at the workrate corresponding to their respiratory compensation point (RCP; ∼80% V̇o2max). Protocols were matched for average intensity, total duration, and energy expenditure. After blood pressure, anthropometrics, body composition, and V̇o2max measurements were taken, responses were recorded for affect (Feeling Scale [FS]), arousal (Felt Arousal Scale [FAS]), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) before each protocol, during the last 10 seconds of every 2 minutes during the protocol, and at time points 2, 5, and 10 minutes after the protocol. Heart rate was also monitored continuously, and exercise enjoyment was measured before and after exercise. A repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in affect between CT (M = 2.5, SD = 2.1) and HIIT (M = 2.6, SD = 2.1) protocols over the duration of the exercise. There were no significant differences in mean RPE between CT (M = 12.9, SD = 2.7) and HIIT (M = 13.0, SD = 1.9) protocols (t = 0.333, p = 0.745) or in enjoyment between CT (M = 2.3, SD = 1.1) and HIIT (M = 2.0, SD = 0.9) protocols (t = -0.288, p = 0.492). In addition, based on visual inspection, the general patterning of the mean FS and FAS values between HIIT and CT was similar within the circumplex model, supporting the DMM. In conclusion, a HIIT protocol at V̇o2max and 1:1 exercise:rest interval did not result in a different affect response, perceived exertion, or enjoyment level when compared with a CT protocol at RCP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alicea et al. (2020) studied Healthy (n=12). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. Continuous training (CT) at respiratory compensation point (∼80% V̇o2max) was evaluated on Affect (Feeling Scale) over the duration of the exercise. High-intensity interval training did not result in significantly different affect (mean score 2.6 vs 2.5), perceived exertion, or enjoyment compared with continuous training in healthy women.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: