Affective Valence and Enjoyment in High- and Moderate-High Intensity Interval Exercise. The Tromsø Exercise Enjoyment Study

Tord Markussen Hammer; Sigurd Pedersen; Svein Arne Pettersen; Kamilla Rognmo; Edvard H Sagelv

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825738

Affective Valence and Enjoyment in High- and Moderate-High Intensity Interval Exercise. The Tromsø Exercise Enjoyment Study

Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 22:13:825738. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825738. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Tord Markussen Hammer¹, Sigurd Pedersen¹, Svein Arne Pettersen¹, Kamilla Rognmo², Edvard H Sagelv¹

Affiliations

¹ School of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
² Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.

Abstract

Introduction: Exercise at high intensity may cause lower affective responses toward exercise compared with moderate intensity exercise. We aimed to elucidate affective valence and enjoyment in high- and moderate-high interval exercise.

Methods: Twenty recreationally active participants (9 females, 11 males, age range: 20-51 years) underwent three different treadmill running exercise sessions per week over a 3-week period, in randomized order; (1) CE70: 45 min continuous exercise at 70% of heart rate maximum (HR_max), (2) INT80: 4 × 4 min intervals at 80% of HR_max, (3) INT90: 4 × 4 min intervals at 90% of HR_max. Pre-tests included graded submaximal steady state intensities and a test to exhaustion for determining peak oxygen uptake and HR_max. Affective valence (pleasure/displeasure) was measured before, during and after the sessions using the Feeling Scale (FS). Enjoyment was assessed before and after the sessions applying the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) and during the sessions using the Exercise Enjoyment Scale (EES).

Results: The participants felt lower pleasure (between-sessions effect: p = 0.02, _p η²: 0.13) during INT90 sessions (FS: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.35-1.92) compared with INT80 (FS: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.62-3.08, p = 0.052) and CE70 sessions (FS: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.72-3.18, p = 0.03), with no differences between INT80 and CE70 sessions (p = 1.00). There were higher enjoyment after INT80 sessions (PACES: 101.5, 95% CI: 95.7-107.3) versus CE70 sessions (PACES: 91.3 95% CI: 85.5-97.1, p = 0.046), and no differences between INT90 (PACES: 98.2, 95% CI: 92.4-103.4) and CE70 (p = 0.29) or INT80 (p = 1.00). For enjoyment during exercise, CE70 were perceived more enjoyable, and INT80 and INT90 less enjoyable in week 2 (EES: week x session: p = 0.01, _p η²: 0.11; CE70: 4.3, 95% CI: 3.6-4.9, INT80: 4.6, 95% CI: 3.9-5.2, INT90: 4.0, 95% CI: 3.4-4.7) and 3 (EES: CE70: 4.2, 95% CI: 3.7-4.8, INT80: 4.8, 95% CI: 4.2-5.3, INT90: 4.3, 95% CI: 3.8-4.9) than in week 1 (EES: CE70: 3.5, 95% CI: 3.0-4.0, INT80: 5.0, 95% CI: 4.5-5.5, INT90: 4.5, 95% CI: 4.0-5.0).

Conclusion: The negative affective consequences associated with high intensity interval exercise can be alleviated by keeping the intensity at or around 80% of HR_max while preserving the beneficial enjoyment responses associated with interval exercise.

Keywords: PACES; adherence; emotion; public health; training.