Cited by 593Cardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and HealthSports Performance and Training

High-intensity interval running is perceived to be more enjoyable than moderate-intensity continuous exercise: Implications for exercise adherence

Bartlett, Jonathan D., Close, Graeme L., MacLaren, Don P. M., Gregson, Warren, Drust, Barry, Morton, James P.·2011·Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract

The aim of this study was to objectively quantify ratings of perceived enjoyment using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale following high-intensity interval running versus moderate-intensity continuous running. Eight recreationally active men performed two running protocols consisting of high-intensity interval running (6 × 3 min at 90% VO(2max) interspersed with 6 × 3 min active recovery at 50% VO(2max) with a 7-min warm-up and cool down at 70% VO(2max)) or 50 min moderate-intensity continuous running at 70% VO(2max). Ratings of perceived enjoyment after exercise were higher (P < 0.05) following interval running compared with continuous running (88 ± 6 vs. 61 ± 12) despite higher (P < 0.05) ratings of perceived exertion (14 ± 1 vs. 13 ± 1). There was no difference (P < 0.05) in average heart rate (88 ± 3 vs. 87 ± 3% maximum heart rate), average VO(2) (71 ± 6 vs. 73 ± 4%VO(2max)), total VO(2) (162 ± 16 vs. 166 ± 27 L) or energy expenditure (811 ± 83 vs. 832 ± 136 kcal) between protocols. The greater enjoyment associated with high-intensity interval running may be relevant for improving exercise adherence, since running is a low-cost exercise intervention requiring no exercise equipment and similar relative exercise intensities have previously induced health benefits in patient populations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02640414.2010.545427

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bartlett, J. D., Close, G. L., MacLaren, D. P. M., Gregson, W., Drust, B., & Morton, J. P.
Affiliations
Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
Corresponding author
Morton, James P.
Venue
Journal of Sports Sciences
Published
2011-03
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
547-553
ISSN
  • 0264-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-447X
OpenAlex
W2111704340
Cited by
593
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 14
FWCI
81.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Sports Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
high-intensity interval training, running, exercise enjoyment, exercise adherence, perceived exertion, moderate-intensity continuous training, Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, recreational runners, energy expenditure, heart rate
MeSH terms
Adult, Energy Metabolism, Physical Exertion, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Oxygen Consumption, Running, Exercise, Young Adult, Pleasure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review