Andressa Fidalgo, Sâmela Joi, Eduardo Lattari, Bruno de Oliveira, Rui Pilon, Paulo Farinatti, Walace Monteiro
{"title":"固定和自选恢复间隔HIIRT对生理、情感和享受反应的影响。","authors":"Andressa Fidalgo, Sâmela Joi, Eduardo Lattari, Bruno de Oliveira, Rui Pilon, Paulo Farinatti, Walace Monteiro","doi":"10.1080/02701367.2022.2042463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> Recovery-interval strategies may influence physiological and psychological responses during highintensity interval resistance training (HIIRT). This study compared the intensity, performance, and psychological outcomes during all-out effort HIIRT performed with fixed (FRI) and self-selected (SSRI) recovery intervals. <b>Methods:</b> Sixteen trained males (27.2 ± 4.1 years; 84.5 ± 8.9 kg; 55.8 ± 7.1 mL.kg-1.min-1) performed HIIRT bouts interspersed with FRI (10 s) and SSRI (15.3 ± 7.9 s). <b>Results:</b> Relative heart rate (%HRmax) and oxygen uptake (%VO2Peak), number of repetitions, and psychological responses (affection: Feeling ScaleFS; Felt Arousal ScaleFAS; enjoyment: Physical Activity Enjoyment ScalePACES) were assessed. FRI and SSRI elicited similar relative average intensity (p > .05) (%HRmax: 88.1 ± 3.5% vs. 87.6 ± 3.0%; %VO2Peak: 55.3 ± 7.4% vs. 54.1 ± 8.1%, respectively). The number of repetitions similarly decreased in SSRI and FRI from rounds 1 to 4 (~15%; p < .006), with no difference of total volume across conditions (FRI: 358.6 ± 32 reps vs. SSRI:357.5 ± 28.2; p = .89). In each round, no difference between FRI and SSRI (p > .05) was found for FS (3- to 3.5 vs. 2- to 4, respectively) or FAS (2- to 4 vs. 2- to 4, respectively), while PACES was lower in FRI than SSRI (102.8 ± 15.8 vs. 109.2 ± 13.2; p = .04). <b>Conclusion:</b> In conclusion, relative intensity, total repetitions, and affective perception were not influenced by the strategy of recovery intervals. On the other hand, overall enjoyment was favored in SSRI vs. FRI.</p>","PeriodicalId":54491,"journal":{"name":"Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of HIIRT With Fixed and Self-Selected Recovery Intervals on Physiological, Affective, and Enjoyment Responses.\",\"authors\":\"Andressa Fidalgo, Sâmela Joi, Eduardo Lattari, Bruno de Oliveira, Rui Pilon, Paulo Farinatti, Walace Monteiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02701367.2022.2042463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> Recovery-interval strategies may influence physiological and psychological responses during highintensity interval resistance training (HIIRT). This study compared the intensity, performance, and psychological outcomes during all-out effort HIIRT performed with fixed (FRI) and self-selected (SSRI) recovery intervals. <b>Methods:</b> Sixteen trained males (27.2 ± 4.1 years; 84.5 ± 8.9 kg; 55.8 ± 7.1 mL.kg-1.min-1) performed HIIRT bouts interspersed with FRI (10 s) and SSRI (15.3 ± 7.9 s). <b>Results:</b> Relative heart rate (%HRmax) and oxygen uptake (%VO2Peak), number of repetitions, and psychological responses (affection: Feeling ScaleFS; Felt Arousal ScaleFAS; enjoyment: Physical Activity Enjoyment ScalePACES) were assessed. FRI and SSRI elicited similar relative average intensity (p > .05) (%HRmax: 88.1 ± 3.5% vs. 87.6 ± 3.0%; %VO2Peak: 55.3 ± 7.4% vs. 54.1 ± 8.1%, respectively). The number of repetitions similarly decreased in SSRI and FRI from rounds 1 to 4 (~15%; p < .006), with no difference of total volume across conditions (FRI: 358.6 ± 32 reps vs. SSRI:357.5 ± 28.2; p = .89). In each round, no difference between FRI and SSRI (p > .05) was found for FS (3- to 3.5 vs. 2- to 4, respectively) or FAS (2- to 4 vs. 2- to 4, respectively), while PACES was lower in FRI than SSRI (102.8 ± 15.8 vs. 109.2 ± 13.2; p = .04). <b>Conclusion:</b> In conclusion, relative intensity, total repetitions, and affective perception were not influenced by the strategy of recovery intervals. On the other hand, overall enjoyment was favored in SSRI vs. FRI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2022.2042463\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2022.2042463","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
目的:恢复间隔策略可能影响高强度间歇阻力训练(HIIRT)中的生理和心理反应。本研究比较了固定(FRI)和自选(SSRI)恢复间隔进行的全力以赴HIIRT的强度、表现和心理结果。方法:男性16例(27.2±4.1岁);84.5±8.9 kg;55.8±7.1 ml .kg-1 min-1)进行HIIRT，穿插FRI (10 s)和SSRI(15.3±7.9 s)。结果:相对心率(%HRmax)和摄氧量(%VO2Peak)、重复次数和心理反应(情绪:感觉量表;感觉觉醒量表;享受:身体活动享受量表(Physical Activity enjoyment ScalePACES)。FRI和SSRI诱导的相对平均强度相似(p > 0.05) (%HRmax: 88.1±3.5% vs 87.6±3.0%;%VO2Peak: 55.3±7.4% vs. 54.1±8.1%)。从第1轮到第4轮，SSRI和FRI的重复次数同样减少(~15%;p < 0.006)，不同条件下的总容积无差异(FRI: 358.6±32个代表vs. SSRI:357.5±28.2;P = 0.89)。在每一轮中，FRI和SSRI在FS(分别为3-至3.5 vs. 2-至4)或FAS(分别为2-至4 vs. 2-至4)方面没有差异(p > 0.05)，而PACES在FRI方面低于SSRI(102.8±15.8 vs. 109.2±13.2;P = .04)。结论:相对强度、总重复次数和情感知觉不受恢复间隔策略的影响。另一方面，在SSRI和FRI中，整体享受更受青睐。
Influence of HIIRT With Fixed and Self-Selected Recovery Intervals on Physiological, Affective, and Enjoyment Responses.
Purpose: Recovery-interval strategies may influence physiological and psychological responses during highintensity interval resistance training (HIIRT). This study compared the intensity, performance, and psychological outcomes during all-out effort HIIRT performed with fixed (FRI) and self-selected (SSRI) recovery intervals. Methods: Sixteen trained males (27.2 ± 4.1 years; 84.5 ± 8.9 kg; 55.8 ± 7.1 mL.kg-1.min-1) performed HIIRT bouts interspersed with FRI (10 s) and SSRI (15.3 ± 7.9 s). Results: Relative heart rate (%HRmax) and oxygen uptake (%VO2Peak), number of repetitions, and psychological responses (affection: Feeling ScaleFS; Felt Arousal ScaleFAS; enjoyment: Physical Activity Enjoyment ScalePACES) were assessed. FRI and SSRI elicited similar relative average intensity (p > .05) (%HRmax: 88.1 ± 3.5% vs. 87.6 ± 3.0%; %VO2Peak: 55.3 ± 7.4% vs. 54.1 ± 8.1%, respectively). The number of repetitions similarly decreased in SSRI and FRI from rounds 1 to 4 (~15%; p < .006), with no difference of total volume across conditions (FRI: 358.6 ± 32 reps vs. SSRI:357.5 ± 28.2; p = .89). In each round, no difference between FRI and SSRI (p > .05) was found for FS (3- to 3.5 vs. 2- to 4, respectively) or FAS (2- to 4 vs. 2- to 4, respectively), while PACES was lower in FRI than SSRI (102.8 ± 15.8 vs. 109.2 ± 13.2; p = .04). Conclusion: In conclusion, relative intensity, total repetitions, and affective perception were not influenced by the strategy of recovery intervals. On the other hand, overall enjoyment was favored in SSRI vs. FRI.
期刊介绍：
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport publishes research in the art and science of human movement that contributes significantly to the knowledge base of the field as new information, reviews, substantiation or contradiction of previous findings, development of theory, or as application of new or improved techniques. The goals of RQES are to provide a scholarly outlet for knowledge that: (a) contributes to the study of human movement, particularly its cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature; (b) impacts theory and practice regarding human movement; (c) stimulates research about human movement; and (d) provides theoretical reviews and tutorials related to the study of human movement. The editorial board, associate editors, and external reviewers assist the editor-in-chief. Qualified reviewers in the appropriate subdisciplines review manuscripts deemed suitable. Authors are usually advised of the decision on their papers within 75–90 days.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
