Department of Kinesiology, CSU-San Marcos, San Marcos, California.
Department of Physical Therapy, Rocky Mountain University, Provo, Utah.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Aug;32(8):2130-2138. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002154.
Olney, N, Wertz, T, LaPorta, Z, Mora, A, Serbas, J, and Astorino, TA. Comparison of acute physiological and psychological responses between moderate-intensity continuous exercise and three regimes of high intensity interval training. J Strength Cond Res 32(8): 2130-2138, 2018-High-intensity interval training (HIIT) elicits similar physiological adaptations as moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) despite less time commitment. However, there is debate whether HIIT is more aversive than MICT. This study compared physiological and perceptual responses between MICT and 3 regimes of HIIT. Nineteen active adults (age = 24.0 ± 3.3 years) unfamiliar with HIIT initially performed ramp exercise to exhaustion to measure maximal oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max) and determine workload for subsequent sessions, whose order was randomized. Sprint interval training (SIT) consisted of six 20-second bouts of "all-out" cycling at 140% of maximum watts (Wmax). Low-volume HIIT (HIITLV) and high-volume HIIT (HIITHV) consisted of eight 60-second bouts at 85% Wmax and six 2-minute bouts at 70% Wmax, respectively. Moderate-intensity continuous training consisted of 25 minutes at 40% Wmax. Across regimes, work was not matched. Heart rate (HR), V[Combining Dot Above]O2, blood lactate concentration (BLa), affect, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed during exercise. Ten minutes postexercise, Physical Activity Enjoyment (PACES) was measured via a survey. Results revealed significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) V[Combining Dot Above]O2, HR, BLa, and RPE in SIT, HIITLV, and HIITHV vs. MICT. Despite a decline in affect during exercise (p < 0.01) and significantly lower affect (p ≤ 0.05) during all HIIT regimes vs. MICT at 50, 75, and 100% of session duration, PACES was similar across regimes (p = 0.65), although it was higher in women (p = 0.03). Findings from healthy adults unaccustomed to interval training demonstrate that HIIT and SIT are perceived as enjoyable as MICT despite being more aversive.
奥尼，N，沃尔特，T，拉波特，Z，莫拉，A，塞尔巴斯，J，和阿斯托里诺，TA。比较中等强度连续运动和三种高强度间歇训练方案的急性生理和心理反应。J 力量与条件研究 32（8）：2130-2138，2018-高强度间歇训练（HIIT）尽管时间投入较少，但仍能引起与中等强度连续训练（MICT）相似的生理适应。然而，是否 HIIT 比 MICT 更令人不快存在争议。本研究比较了 MICT 和 3 种 HIIT 方案的生理和感知反应。19 名不熟悉 HIIT 的活跃成年人（年龄=24.0±3.3 岁）最初进行斜坡运动至力竭，以测量最大摄氧量（V[Combining Dot Above]O2max）并确定随后会话的工作量，其顺序是随机的。冲刺间歇训练（SIT）由六个 20 秒的“全力以赴”自行车回合组成，强度为最大瓦特（Wmax）的 140%。低容量 HIIT（HIITLV）和高容量 HIIT（HIITHV）分别由 8 个 60 秒回合和 6 个 2 分钟回合组成，强度分别为 85%和 70%。中等强度连续训练由 40%Wmax 下的 25 分钟组成。在所有方案中，工作都不匹配。在运动过程中评估心率（HR）、V[Combining Dot Above]O2、血乳酸浓度（BLa）、影响和感知用力程度（RPE）。运动后 10 分钟，通过问卷调查测量身体活动享受程度（PACES）。结果表明，SIT、HIITLV 和 HIITHV 与 MICT 相比，V[Combining Dot Above]O2、HR、BLa 和 RPE 显著更高（p≤0.05）。尽管运动过程中的影响（p<0.01）下降，并且在所有 HIIT 方案中，与 MICT 相比，在 50%、75%和 100%的会话持续时间内，影响显著降低（p≤0.05），但在方案之间 PACES 相似（p=0.65），尽管女性（p=0.03）更高。这项针对不熟悉间歇训练的健康成年人的研究结果表明，尽管 HIIT 和 SIT 比 MICT 更令人不快，但它们被认为与 MICT 一样愉快。
