Publication | Closed Access
High-intensity interval running is perceived to be more enjoyable than moderate-intensity continuous exercise: Implications for exercise adherence
578
Citations
33
References
2011
Year
Physical ActivityAdapted Physical ActivityExercise AdherenceHigh-intensity Interval TrainingEducationHigh-intensity Interval RunningExercise PsychologyKinesiologyExercisePhysical ExerciseApplied PhysiologyPerceived EnjoymentSport PhysiologySport ScienceHealth SciencesPhysical FitnessClinical Exercise PhysiologyRehabilitationActive MenExercise ScienceModerate-intensity Continuous ExercisePhysical Activity EpidemiologyExercise PhysiologyHuman MovementAthletic Training
High‑intensity interval running is perceived as more enjoyable than moderate‑intensity continuous running, which may improve exercise adherence because running is inexpensive, equipment‑free, and has shown health benefits at similar intensities. The study aimed to objectively quantify enjoyment using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale after high‑intensity interval versus moderate‑intensity continuous running. Eight recreationally active men completed two protocols: 6 × 3 min intervals at 90 % VO₂max with 3 min recoveries at 50 % VO₂max, plus a 7‑min warm‑up and cool‑down at 70 % VO₂max, or a single 50‑min run at 70 % VO₂max. Enjoyment ratings were significantly higher after interval running (88 ± 6) than continuous running (61 ± 12) despite greater perceived exertion, while heart rate, VO₂, total VO₂, and energy expenditure did not differ between protocols.
The aim of this study was to objectively quantify ratings of perceived enjoyment using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale following high-intensity interval running versus moderate-intensity continuous running. Eight recreationally active men performed two running protocols consisting of high-intensity interval running (6 × 3 min at 90% VO(2max) interspersed with 6 × 3 min active recovery at 50% VO(2max) with a 7-min warm-up and cool down at 70% VO(2max)) or 50 min moderate-intensity continuous running at 70% VO(2max). Ratings of perceived enjoyment after exercise were higher (P < 0.05) following interval running compared with continuous running (88 ± 6 vs. 61 ± 12) despite higher (P < 0.05) ratings of perceived exertion (14 ± 1 vs. 13 ± 1). There was no difference (P < 0.05) in average heart rate (88 ± 3 vs. 87 ± 3% maximum heart rate), average VO(2) (71 ± 6 vs. 73 ± 4%VO(2max)), total VO(2) (162 ± 16 vs. 166 ± 27 L) or energy expenditure (811 ± 83 vs. 832 ± 136 kcal) between protocols. The greater enjoyment associated with high-intensity interval running may be relevant for improving exercise adherence, since running is a low-cost exercise intervention requiring no exercise equipment and similar relative exercise intensities have previously induced health benefits in patient populations.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1