A systematic review and meta-analysis of affective responses to acute high intensity interval exercise compared with continuous moderate- and high-Intensity exercise

Abstract

There is evidence for the physical health benefits of high intensity interval exercise (HIIE), but its public health potential has been challenged. It is purported that compared with moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) the high intensity nature of HIIE may lead to negative affective responses. This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017058203) addressed this proposition and synthesised research that compares affective responses to HIIE with MICE and vigorous intensity continuous exercise (VICE), during-, end-, and postexercise. Searches were conducted on five databases, and findings from 33 studies were meta-analysed using random effects models or narratively synthesised. A meta-analysis of affect showed a significant effect in favour of MICE vs HIIE at the lowest point, during and post-exercise, but not at end, and the narrative synthesis supported this for other affective outcomes. Differences on affect between VICE vs HIIE were limited. Pooled data showed arousal levels were consistently higher during HIIE. For enjoyment there was a significant effect in favour of HIIE vs MICE, no difference for HIIE vs VICE at post-exercise, and mixed findings for during-exercise. Although the findings are clouded by methodological issues they indicate that compared to MICE, HIIE is experienced less positively but postexercise is reported to be more enjoyable.

Using Bodyweight as Resistance Can Be a Promising Avenue to Promote Interval Training: Enjoyment Comparisons to Treadmill-Based Protocols

“…With a marked increase in the number of studies published in recent years, it is clear now that interval training can be perceived as equally or even more enjoyable than MICT when assessed acutely (Niven et al, 2020;Stork et al, 2017). Our results corroborate these findings since no differences were observed between SIT-T, SIT-WB, and MICT after the first training session.…”

“…As previously mentioned, training load was readjusted based on the results of the new incremental test after the eighth week of training. As recently highlighted by Niven et al (2020), a potential limitation on previous research is that MICT intensity has been typically considered based on HR or V O 2max percentages. Because these approaches do not accommodate individual differences in metabolism that may, otherwise influence affective responses and attitudes, we consider the use of an intensity based on VT 2 as a strength of our experimental design.…”

“…In light of this, there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not people might be willing to engage in interval training (Biddle & Batterham, 2015), with some claiming that it may lead to poor adherence and, consequently, low feasibility in the general population (Coyle, 2005). In recent years, however, a growing number of studies have reported that different interval training protocols are indeed perceived as equally (Foster et al, 2015;Jung et al, 2014;Kilpatrick et al, 2015;Oliveira et al, 2013;Olney et al, 2018;Stork et al, 2018) or more enjoyable (Heisz et al, 2016;Martinez et al, 2015;Niven et al, 2020) than continuous exercise by healthy adults. The majority of studies that investigated perceived enjoyment, however, assessed only acute responses to a single bout and, therefore, these might not reflect the overall enjoyment of a longer-term training program.…”

Make Fitness Fun: Could Novelty Be the Key Determinant for Physical Activity Adherence?

“…One plausible approach might be interval training, whereby the intensity of movement is intermittently varied. Studies have shown that interval training can improve enjoyment (Stork et al, 2017 ), affective response (Niven et al, in press ), and mental and physiological adaptations (Martland et al, 2020 ) in comparison to continuous moderate intensity exercise. Finally, enjoyment is an important factor mediating the level of PA adherence (Wankel, 1993 ; Jekauc, 2015 ).…”

Recall of Affective Responses to Exercise: Examining the Influence of Intensity and Time

“…Extensive research of affective responses to exercise has been guided by Russell's (1980) circumplex model of affect comprising the dimensions of valence and arousal; primarily studies have focused upon how pleasant versus unpleasant (i.e., valence) individuals perceive the experience of physical activity to be (e.g., Williams et al, 2012;Williams and Raynor, 2013). Over a period of 50 years of research, the widely promoted "feel good" effect of exercise has been scrutinized (Ekkekakis et al, 2011;Ekkekakis and Brand, 2019); further, popular claims extolling the virtues of high-intensity interval training related to the cliché "no pain, no gain" have been the focus of recent affect-related research (Stork et al, 2018;Niven et al, 2020;Roloff et al, 2020). Numerous studies highlight that affective states derived from exercise are not purely positive; rather, over the course of exercise, affective states vary, and typically shift between pleasant and unpleasant hedonic valence (Backhouse et al, 2007;Ekkekakis et al, 2008;Rose and Parfitt, 2012).…”