Interval training elicits higher enjoyment versus moderate exercise in persons with spinal cord injury.

Todd A Astorino, Jacob S Thum
{"title":"Interval training elicits higher enjoyment versus moderate exercise in persons with spinal cord injury.","authors":"Todd A Astorino, Jacob S Thum","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2016.1235754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High intensity interval training (HIIT) is a robust and time-efficient approach to improve multiple health indices including maximal oxygen uptake (VO<sub>2</sub>max). Despite the intense nature of HIIT, data in untrained adults report greater enjoyment of HIIT versus continuous exercise (CEX). However, this has yet to be investigated in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine differences in enjoyment in response to CEX and HIIT in persons with SCI.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Repeated measures, within-subjects design.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University laboratory in San Diego, CA.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Nine habitually active men and women (age = 33.3 ± 10.5 years) with chronic SCI.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Participants performed progressive arm ergometry to volitional exhaustion to determine VO<sub>2</sub>peak. During subsequent sessions, they completed CEX, sprint interval training (SIT), or HIIT in randomized order.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Physical activity enjoyment (PACES), affect, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), VO<sub>2</sub>, and blood lactate concentration (BLa) were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Despite a higher VO<sub>2</sub>, RPE, and BLa consequent with HIIT and SIT (P < 0.05), PACES was significantly higher (P = 0.03) in response to HIIT (107.4 ± 13.4) and SIT (103.7 ± 12.5) compared to CEX (81.6 ± 25.4). Fifty-five percent of participants preferred HIIT and 45% preferred SIT, with none identifying CEX as their preferred exercise mode.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to CEX, brief sessions of submaximal or supramaximal interval training elicit higher enjoyment despite higher metabolic strain. The long-term efficacy and feasibility of HIIT in this population should be explored considering that it is not viewed as more aversive than CEX.</p>","PeriodicalId":19075,"journal":{"name":"Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archiv fur experimentelle Pathologie und Pharmakologie","volume":"126 1","pages":"77-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5810810/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archiv fur experimentelle Pathologie und Pharmakologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2016.1235754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: High intensity interval training (HIIT) is a robust and time-efficient approach to improve multiple health indices including maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). Despite the intense nature of HIIT, data in untrained adults report greater enjoyment of HIIT versus continuous exercise (CEX). However, this has yet to be investigated in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI).

Objective: To examine differences in enjoyment in response to CEX and HIIT in persons with SCI.

Design: Repeated measures, within-subjects design.

Setting: University laboratory in San Diego, CA.

Participants: Nine habitually active men and women (age = 33.3 ± 10.5 years) with chronic SCI.

Intervention: Participants performed progressive arm ergometry to volitional exhaustion to determine VO2peak. During subsequent sessions, they completed CEX, sprint interval training (SIT), or HIIT in randomized order.

Outcome measures: Physical activity enjoyment (PACES), affect, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), VO2, and blood lactate concentration (BLa) were measured.

Results: Despite a higher VO2, RPE, and BLa consequent with HIIT and SIT (P < 0.05), PACES was significantly higher (P = 0.03) in response to HIIT (107.4 ± 13.4) and SIT (103.7 ± 12.5) compared to CEX (81.6 ± 25.4). Fifty-five percent of participants preferred HIIT and 45% preferred SIT, with none identifying CEX as their preferred exercise mode.

Conclusion: Compared to CEX, brief sessions of submaximal or supramaximal interval training elicit higher enjoyment despite higher metabolic strain. The long-term efficacy and feasibility of HIIT in this population should be explored considering that it is not viewed as more aversive than CEX.

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
与适度运动相比,间歇训练能让脊髓损伤患者获得更多乐趣。
背景:高强度间歇训练(HIIT)是提高包括最大摄氧量(VO2max)在内的多种健康指数的一种强效、省时的方法。尽管高强度间歇训练(HIIT)强度大,但未经训练的成年人的数据显示,与持续运动(CEX)相比,他们更喜欢高强度间歇训练(HIIT)。然而,这一点尚未在脊髓损伤(SCI)患者中进行调查:目的:研究脊髓损伤患者在进行 CEX 和 HIIT 运动时的乐趣差异:设计:重复测量、受试者内设计:地点:加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥的大学实验室:九名习惯性活跃的男性和女性(年龄 = 33.3 ± 10.5 岁)慢性 SCI 患者:干预措施:参与者进行渐进式手臂测力,直至自愿力竭,以确定 VO2 峰值。在随后的训练中,他们按照随机顺序完成CEX、短跑间歇训练(SIT)或HIIT:结果:测量了体育活动乐趣(PACES)、情绪、感知用力等级(RPE)、容氧量和血乳酸浓度(BLa):结果:尽管 HIIT 和 SIT 带来了更高的 VO2、RPE 和 BLa(P 结论:与 CEX 相比,HIIT 和 SIT 带来了更高的 VO2、RPE 和 BLa:与 CEX 相比,短暂的亚极限或超极限间歇训练尽管会造成更高的代谢负荷,但却能带来更高的享受。考虑到 HIIT 不被视为比 CEX 更令人反感的训练,因此应探讨 HIIT 在这一人群中的长期功效和可行性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acupuncture as a Complementary Treatment for Leg Ulcers in Sickle-Cell Disease. Mechanisms of secretion and spreading of pathological tau protein. Micronutrient powder use in Arequipa, Peru: Barriers and enablers across multiple levels. Murine Model of Maternal Immunization Demonstrates Protective Role for Antibodies That Mediate Antibody-Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity in Protecting Neonates From Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 and Type 2. Interval training elicits higher enjoyment versus moderate exercise in persons with spinal cord injury.
×
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