Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 30, 2025

A Real-World High-Intensity Interval Training Protocol for Cardiorespiratory Fitness Improvement
Published on: February 22, 2022
Comparison of the Affective Responses to Continuous Training and High-Intensity Interval Training Protocols:
Sheila K Alicea1, April D Parrott2, Tina M Manos2
1Department of Kinesiology, St. Edward's University, Austin, Texas; and.
Abstract:
Alicea, SK, Parrott, AD, Manos, TM, and Kwon, YS. Comparison of the affective responses to continuous training and high-intensity interval training protocols: application of the dual-mode model. J Strength Cond Res 35(11): 3069-3075, 2021-High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is time-efficient and has physiological benefits similar to or greater than that of continuous training (CT); however, there are mixed results regarding how HIIT protocols influence affect. The purpose of this study was to compare acute affective responses between HIIT and CT protocols over time using the Dual-Mode Model (DMM) as a theoretical framework. Subjects included 12 healthy women (aged 19-28 years) who completed a HIIT protocol consisting of a 2-minute work interval (100% V̇o2max) followed by a 2-minute rest interval (∼55% V̇o2max), and a CT protocol set at the workrate corresponding to their respiratory compensation point (RCP; ∼80% V̇o2max). Protocols were matched for average intensity, total duration, and energy expenditure. After blood pressure, anthropometrics, body composition, and V̇o2max measurements were taken, responses were recorded for affect (Feeling Scale [FS]), arousal (Felt Arousal Scale [FAS]), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) before each protocol, during the last 10 seconds of every 2 minutes during the protocol, and at time points 2, 5, and 10 minutes after the protocol. Heart rate was also monitored continuously, and exercise enjoyment was measured before and after exercise. A repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in affect between CT (M = 2.5, SD = 2.1) and HIIT (M = 2.6, SD = 2.1) protocols over the duration of the exercise. There were no significant differences in mean RPE between CT (M = 12.9, SD = 2.7) and HIIT (M = 13.0, SD = 1.9) protocols (t = 0.333, p = 0.745) or in enjoyment between CT (M = 2.3, SD = 1.1) and HIIT (M = 2.0, SD = 0.9) protocols (t = -0.288, p = 0.492). In addition, based on visual inspection, the general patterning of the mean FS and FAS values between HIIT and CT was similar within the circumplex model, supporting the DMM. In conclusion, a HIIT protocol at V̇o2max and 1:1 exercise:rest interval did not result in a different affect response, perceived exertion, or enjoyment level when compared with a CT protocol at RCP.
More Related Videos
06:28A Chronic High-Intensity Interval Training and Diet-Induced Obesity Model to Maximize Exercise Effort and Induce Physiologic Changes in Rats
Published on: April 28, 2023
07:40Impact of High-intensity Interval Exercise and Moderate-Intensity Continuous Exercise on the Cardiac Troponin T Level at an Early Stage of Training
Published on: October 10, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Exercise and Cardiovascular Response
Light to moderate physical activity initiates a series of interconnected responses in the body. The heart rate modestly increases in anticipation of the workout, followed by widespread vasodilation as oxygen consumption by skeletal muscles increases. This results in decreased peripheral resistance, increased capillary blood flow, and accelerated...
Dose-Response Relationship: Overview
Exercise Stress Test
Exercise stress testing, commonly known as a treadmill test, is a noninvasive procedure used to evaluate cardiovascular function and diagnose heart conditions.
Definition
An exercise stress test measures the heart's response to exertion using a treadmill or stationary bicycle. Chest electrodes record the heart's electrical activity through an ECG, and blood pressure is monitored regularly.
Purposes
Optimal Arousal Theory
Inverted U-Shaped Performance Curve
The...
Dose-Response Relationship: Selectivity and Specificity
Dose-Response Relationship: Potency and Efficacy