The aim of this study was to compare affective responses between a synchronous online and an in-person high-intensity functional training (HIFT) group exercise session on perceived effort, discomfort, displeasure/pleasure, enjoyment and preference in sports students. Using a randomized crossover design, 24 participants (14 men, 10 women, mean age 22) were randomized into two groups. Both groups completed in randomized order two standardized HIFT sessions, one in-person and one synchronous online. Rating of perceived effort, rate of perceived discomfort, session displeasure/pleasure and exercise enjoyment were measured immediately after ending each session. In addition, 48 h after the last session the participants answers which session they preferred and gave reasons for their preference. The reported pleasure (2.0 ± 2.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.7, ES = 0.47, scale −5 to +5) and exercise enjoyment (4.2 ± 1.2 vs. 5.1 ± 1.0, ES = 0.56, scale 1–7) were lower conducting the online HIFT session than the in-person HIFT session. The online HIFT session were perceived less effortful than the in-person HIFT session (5.6 ± 1.7 vs. 6.7 ± 1.7, respectively, ES = 0.48, scale 0–10), but no difference in perceived discomfort (4.4 ± 2.0 vs. 4.7 ± 1.9, ES = 0.12, scale 0–10). There was no detectable cross-over effect of the order of the two training sessions ( p ≥ 0.29). The large majority of participants ( n = 22, 92%) preferred in-person group exercise, while only two participants (8%) preferred the online session. In sports students with prior group-training experience, in-person HIFT session demonstrated great perceived effort, pleasure and enjoyment when using self-reported perceptual measures, and was the preferred exercise modality compared with the online session.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brudeseth et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: