Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34587217›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Evidence-based vs. social media based high-intensity interval training protocols: Physiological and perceptual responses.

Katie L Hesketh, Hannah Church, Florence Kinnafick, Sam O Shepherd, Anton J M Wagenmakers, Matthew Cocks, Juliette A Strauss

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katie L HeskethResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3409-3906
Hannah ChurchResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Florence KinnafickSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Sam O ShepherdResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Anton J M WagenmakersResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Matthew CocksResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Juliette A StraussResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Liverpool John Moores University · GBLoughborough University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHigh intensity interval training (HIIT) is a time-efficient exercise modality to improve cardiorespiratory fitness, and has recently been popularised by social media influencers. However, little is known regarding acute physiological and perceptual responses to these online protocols compared to HIIT protocols used within research. The aim was to investigate acute physiological, perceptual and motivational responses to two HIIT protocols popular on social media, and compare these to two evidence-based protocols.

methodsTwenty-seven recreationally active (>1 exercise session /week) participants (Age: 22±3y, BMI: 24.3±2.4) completed a randomised cross-over study, whereby each participant completed four HIIT protocols, two already established in research (Ergo-60:60 (cycling 10x60s at 100%Wmaxwith 60s rest), BW-60:60 (body-weight exercises 10x60swith 60s rest)) and two promoted on social media (SM-20:10 (body-weight exercises 20x20swith 10s rest) and SM-40:20 (body-weight exercises 15x40s with 20s rest)). Blood lactate, heart rate (HR), feeling scale (FS), felt arousal scale (FSA), enjoyment and perceived competence were measured in response to each protocol.

resultsSignificant differences were observed between BW-60:60 and SM-20:10 for the proportion of intervals meeting the ACSM high-intensity exercise criterion (>80% of HRmax) (BW-60:60 93±10%, SM-20:10 74±20%, P = 0.039) and change in lactate (BW-60:60 +7.8±3.7mmol/L, SM-20:10 +5.5±2.6mmol/L, P = 0.001). The percentage of time spent above the criterion HR was also significantly lower in SM-20:10 compared to all other protocols (Ergo-60:60 13.9±4.9min, BW-60:60 13.5±3.5min, SM-40:20 12.1±2.4min, SM-20:10 7.7±3.1, P<0.05). No differences were observed in lowest reported FS between protocols (P = 0.268), but FS decreased linearly throughout Ergo-60:60 and BW-60:60 (first vs. last interval P<0.05), but not in SM-20:10 or SM-40:20 (P>0.05). Enjoyment was higher upon completion of BW-60:60 compared to Ergo-60:60 and SM-40:20 (P<0.05).

conclusionsThis study shows that HIIT protocols available on social media offer an interesting real-world alternative for promoting exercise participation. Future studies should continue to investigate these highly popular and practical HIIT protocols.

Indexed as

AdultBody WeightCardiorespiratory FitnessCross-Over StudiesEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHealth PromotionHeartHeart RateHigh-Intensity Interval TrainingHumansLactic AcidMalePatient ParticipationRandom AllocationSocial MediaLactic Acid

Identifiers

PMID34587217
PMCPMC8480907
OpenAlexW3204901295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.