A systematic review and meta-analysis of affective responses to acute high intensity interval exercise compared with continuous moderate- and high-Intensity exercise.
Ailsa Niven, Yvonne Laird, David H Saunders, Shaun M Phillips
{"title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of affective responses to acute high intensity interval exercise compared with continuous moderate- and high-Intensity exercise.","authors":"Ailsa Niven, Yvonne Laird, David H Saunders, Shaun M Phillips","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2020.1728564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 post-exercise. 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 post-exercise is reported to be more enjoyable.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":"15 4","pages":"540-573"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17437199.2020.1728564","citationCount":"39","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1728564","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39
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 post-exercise. 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 post-exercise is reported to be more enjoyable.
期刊介绍:
The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.