ArticlePeerJ2019
Sprint interval exercise versus continuous moderate intensity exercise: acute effects on tissue oxygenation, blood pressure and enjoyment in 18-30 year old inactive men.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Affective and Enjoyment Responses to Sprint Interval Training in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- The Effect of Self-Selected Exercise Workloads on Perceived Enjoyment and Self-Efficacy in Sedentary Adults.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Effects of high-intensity interval training on blood lactate levels and cognition in healthy adults: protocol for systematic review and network meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Affective Responses to Repeated Endurance Training Sessions with Different Intensities: A Randomized Trial.International journal of exercise science · 2022Article
- New Insights into Mechanical, Metabolic and Muscle Oxygenation Signals During and After High-Intensity Tethered Running.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSprint interval training (SIT) can be as effective, or more effective, than continuous moderate intensity exercise (CMIE) for improving a primary risk factor for cardiometabolic disease, low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). However, there has been no direct comparison in inactive individuals, of the acute effects of a session of SIT with a work-matched session of CMIE on local oxygen utilisation, which is a primary stimulus for increasing CRF. Furthermore, post-exercise blood pressure (BP) and enjoyment, if symptomatic and low, respectively, have implications for safety and adherence to exercise and have not been compared between these specific conditions. It was hypothesised that in young inactive men, local oxygen utilisation would be higher, while post-exercise BP and enjoyment would be lower for SIT, when compared to CMIE.
methodsA total of 11 inactive men (mean ± SD; age 23 ± 4 years) completed a maximal ramp-incremental exercise test followed by two experiment conditions: (1) SIT and (2) work-matched CMIE on a cycle ergometer on separate days. Deoxygenated haemoglobin (∆HHb) in the pre-frontal cortex (FH), gastrocnemius (GN), left vastus lateralis (LVL) and the right vastus lateralis (RVL) muscles, systemic oxygen utilisation (VO
resultsDuring SIT, compared to CMIE, ∆HHb in FH (
conclusionsIn young inactive men, higher levels of physiological stress occurred during SIT, which potentially contributed to lower levels of post-exercise DBP and enjoyment, when compared to CMIE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.