Affect is typically positive at intensities below the lactate or ventilatory threshold, yet more aversive responses occur at supra-threshold intensities which may reduce positive perceptions of exercise. Completion of high intensity interval exercise (HIIE) typically elicits a reduction in affect, yet greater post-exercise enjoyment has been reported in response to HIIE versus moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE). This study examined affectual responses to HIIE and sprint interval exercise (SIE) in 71 active men and women (age = 24.0 ± 4.8 year). Participants performed various HIIE and SIE regimes on the cycle ergometer during which affect (+5 - -5 scale), rating of perceived exertion (RPE, Borg 1-10 scale), and blood lactate concentration (BLa) were determined. Enjoyment was measured post-exercise using the PACES scale. Predictors of change in these variables in response to exercise were identified using multiple regression. Results showed a significant reduction in affect (p = .001) which was greater (p = .03) with SIE (-5.7 ± 2.7) compared to HIIE (-4.3 ± 2.4). Nevertheless, there was marked variability in the affect response across participants, as its change ranged from -1 to -7 units from pre- to post-exercise in 85% of all sessions. Sixty two percent of the change in affect seen across regimes was explained by baseline affect, BLa, and enjoyment. Significant associations were shown between the change in affect and baseline affect (r = -0.46, p < .001) and change in RPE (r = -0.59, p < .001). In addition, RPE significantly increased in response to HIIE (6.1 ± 1.7) and SIE (6.9 ± 2.0) but was not different (p = .050) between regimes. Our findings document an intensity-dependent relationship between affect and intensity during interval training, as supramaximal intensities elicit a larger decline in affect compared to submaximal intensities. In addition, pre-exercise affect is associated with the magnitude of change in affect reported in response to interval exercise.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2018.
All research outputs
#18,284,127
of 26,745,229 outputs
Outputs from Physiology & Behavior
#3,775
of 5,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,161
of 348,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiology & Behavior
#46
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,745,229 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
