A systematic review and meta-analysis of affective responses to acute high intensity interval exercise compared with continuous moderate- and high-Intensity exercise.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-02-25 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2020.1728564
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,&nbsp;Yvonne Laird,&nbsp;David H Saunders,&nbsp;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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对急性高强度间歇运动与持续中、高强度运动的情感反应进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。
有证据表明高强度间歇运动(HIIE)对身体健康有益,但其公共卫生潜力受到挑战。与中强度连续运动(MICE)相比,HIIE的高强度性质可能导致消极的情感反应。本系统综述(PROSPERO CRD42017058203)解决了这一问题,并对HIIE与小鼠和高强度连续运动(VICE)在运动期间、运动结束和运动后的情感反应进行了综合研究。在五个数据库中进行了搜索,并使用随机效应模型或叙事综合对33项研究的结果进行了元分析。一项关于情感的荟萃分析显示,在最低点、运动期间和运动后,MICE对HIIE有显著的影响,但在运动结束时没有,叙事综合也支持了其他情感结果。VICE与HIIE之间的影响差异有限。综合数据显示,HIIE期间的唤醒水平一直较高。在享受方面,HIIE与MICE的效果显著,运动后HIIE与VICE的效果无差异,运动期间的结果则好坏参半。尽管研究结果受到方法问题的影响,但它们表明,与MICE相比,HIIE的体验不那么积极,但据报道,运动后的体验更愉快。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
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.
期刊最新文献
The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology and diagnosis in burn survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yoga as an intervention for stress: a meta-analysis. Analytical decisions pose moral questions. Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1