ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Comparison of affective responses between an online and in-person high-intensity functional training session in sports students.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare affective responses between a synchronous online and an in-person high-intensity functional training (HIFT) group exercise session on perceived effort, discomfort, displeasure/pleasure, enjoyment and preference in sports students. Using a randomized crossover design, 24 participants (14 men, 10 women, mean age 22) were randomized into two groups. Both groups completed in randomized order two standardized HIFT sessions, one in-person and one synchronous online. Rating of perceived effort, rate of perceived discomfort, session displeasure/pleasure and exercise enjoyment were measured immediately after ending each session. In addition, 48 h after the last session the participants answers which session they preferred and gave reasons for their preference. The reported pleasure (2.0 ± 2.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.7, ES = 0.47, scale -5 to +5) and exercise enjoyment (4.2 ± 1.2 vs. 5.1 ± 1.0, ES = 0.56, scale 1-7) were lower conducting the online HIFT session than the in-person HIFT session. The online HIFT session were perceived less effortful than the in-person HIFT session (5.6 ± 1.7 vs. 6.7 ± 1.7, respectively, ES = 0.48, scale 0-10), but no difference in perceived discomfort (4.4 ± 2.0 vs. 4.7 ± 1.9, ES = 0.12, scale 0-10). There was no detectable cross-over effect of the order of the two training sessions (
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.