Physiological, perceptual and affective responses to high-intensity interval training using two work-matched programs with different bout duration in obese males

Objectives

This study compared physiological, perceptual, and affective responses to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) between two work-matched programs with different bout durations in obese males.

Methods

Sixteen low-to-moderately active obese men completed an eight-week cycling program of supervised HIIT (3 days/week) using either short bouts [48 × 10 s at 100% of peak power output (PPO) with 15 s of recovery (HIIT10)] or long bouts [8 × 60 s at 100% PPO with 90 s of recovery (HIIT60)]. Workload was progressively adjusted, to maintain high intensity (100% PPO), throughout training. Blood lactate (BLa), heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and feeling scale ratings (pleasure/displeasure) were measured in each HIIT session.

Results

Average HR decreased in the last 2 weeks of training in both groups by 2.2 ± 1.8% of peak HR (p < 0.001). Training resulted in a reduction in BLa during exercise by 28 ± 19% (p < 0.001) from the 10th min onward only in HIIT10. Similarly, during the last weeks of training, RPE decreased (by 1.0 ± 1.1 units, p < 0.05) and feeling scale ratings were improved only in HIIT10, while RPE remained unchanged and feeling scale ratings deteriorated in HIIT60 (from 3.0 ± 1.1 to 2.1 ± 0.9 units, p < 0.001). No differences in post-exercise enjoyment were found.

Conclusion

Both HIIT formats induced similar HR adaptations, but improvement of BLa, perceptual and affective responses occurred only when bout duration was shorter. Our findings suggest that, in low-to-moderately active obese men, HIIT may be more effective in improving metabolic, perceptual, and affective responses when shorter, rather than longer, bouts of exercise are used.

Might High-Intensity Interval Exercise Be Remembered as More Pleasurable? An Attempt to Test the Peak-End Rule in the Exercise Context

Given humans' limited ability to recall past experiences for evaluation, scholars have proposed the peak-end rule stating that if perceived discomfort at the end of an aversive experience is lower than the peak discomfort experienced, the aversive experience will be remembered more positively. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the peak-end rule as applied to high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE). Participants were 30 inactive men (M age = 27.9, SD =  5.2 years). In the first session they performed a graded exercise test on cycle-ergometer to determine their maximal aerobic power (MAP) (M = 233, SD = 35W); and, in the second and third sessions, they performed two HIIE protocols in randomized order: (a) Short trial - 20-minutes of HIIE, composed of 30-second efforts at 100% of MAP interspersed by 30-seconds of passive recovery; and (b) Long trial - 20-minutes of the short trial, plus 10-minutes more of HIIE, decreasing 3% of MAP in each additional bout, resulting in 70% of MAP in the last bout. During exercise, we recorded the participants' rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and affect, using the Feeling Scale (FS). At 30-minutes post-exercise, we again recorded the participants' affect, using the Global Affect Evaluation (GAE) and their session-RPE, and we recorded their enjoyment, using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). In the last session, the participants chose a favorite protocol to repeat. All sessions were interspersed by at least 72 hours. The 10-minutes extra HIIE in the Long-trial condition resulted decreased heart rate values (M = 157, SD = 13bpm to M = 144, SD = 14bpm; p < 0.001), but psychological responses during and after exercise did not differ, nor did participants' preferred HIIE protocol. As the load drop for the Long-trial was not enough to change the psychological responses during exercise, there was no difference in the retrospective evaluation as the peak-end rule would have suggested.