Affective outcomes during and after high-intensity exercise in outdoor green and indoor gym settings

Abstract

Citation: TURNER, T.L. and STEVINSON, C., 2017. Affective outcomes during and after high-intensity exercise in outdoor green and indoor gym settings. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 27 (2), pp. 106-116. Methods:This study compared the psychological effects of high intensity exercise in outdoor green and indoor gym settings in 22 adult runners using a randomized repeated measures design. Affect and perceived exertion were assessed before, during, and after a 6000m run with the second half completed at maximum effort.Results: Perceived exertion and activation increased in a progressive manner from baseline to 6000m, and decreased during the 10 min recovery post-run. Non-significant reductions in affective valence were observed between 3000m and 6000m, followed by a significant increase post-run. Outcomes did not differ at any time point between the settings. Conclusion:This study suggested that regular runners experience positive affective responses during and after high-intensity exercise in both a natural outdoor environment and an indoor gym.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Crossover Studies Comparing Physiological, Perceptual and Performance Measures Between Treadmill and Overground Running

“…Notably, Jones and Doust [2] found that V O 2 could be matched between overground and motorised treadmill conditions by adjusting the treadmill grade to 1%. As a result, many researchers adjust the treadmill grade to 1% [12][13][14][15][16], despite not all studies supporting this practice [5,12]. Using a treadmill grade such as 1% might be particularly important at faster running speeds, which tend to demonstrate greater air resistance during overground running larger systematic review project comparing overground and treadmill running across a broader range of outcome measures (Registration number CRD42017074640).…”

“…This review contained a total of 468 total participants (350 males, 102 females, 16 not specified). Of the 34 studies included in the review, 23 studies [1, 2, 6, 8-10, 14, 16-19, 21, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40-43] included only male participants, two studies [12,36] did not specify participant sex, and nine studies [5,11,13,15,20,31,33,39,44] included a mix of male and female participants. Twenty-one studies recruited only runners and typically described the runners in their studies as 'trained', 'distance' or 'recreational' runners.…”

“…Fourteen studies involved participants running at a fixed running speed [2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 30-32, 34, 36, 37], four studies involved participants running at a fixed self-selected pace [11,15,35] or RPE [21] and four studies involved participants running at a fixed percentage of [10,13,41,44]. Six studies involved set distance or duration time trials [16,20,29,30,38,43], three studies involved maximal effort sprint protocols [6,19,33] and two studies involved maximal effort graded exercise tests [1,40].…”

“…Sixteen studies [1, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 30, 32-34, 36, 41, 43] were at high risk of an order effect, reporting a fixed starting condition or not reporting any randomisation. Only three studies [13,15,44] were classified as low risk, providing sufficient information regarding method of randomisation. All other studies were classified as unclear risk because they did not provide sufficient information regarding method of randomisation.…”

“…Eight studies [2,10,14,17,31,39,40,42] did not provide sufficient information on the number of participants assessed and included in analysis and were at an unclear risk of attrition bias. Five studies [8,15,20,30,33] were at high risk of attrition bias, reporting incomplete data for all subjects or reporting study dropouts without sufficient reason. Five studies [15,18,19,32,36] did not provide sufficient information regarding how they controlled the speed for the overground trials and were classified as at unclear risk of intensity bias.…”