PMID 31539378

Research
All papers

Affective and enjoyment responses to 12 weeks of high intensity interval training and moderate continuous training in adults with Crohn's disease

Bottoms L, Leighton D, Carpenter R, Anderson S, Langmead L, Ramage J, Faulkner J, Coleman E, Fairhurst C, Seed M, Tew G

Question

How do affective responses, perceived exertion, and enjoyment compare between supervised HIIT and MICT in adults with quiescent or mildly active Crohn's disease?

Summary

This secondary analysis of a randomized feasibility trial compared affect and enjoyment during 12 weeks of supervised cycling HIIT and MICT in adults with quiescent or mildly active Crohn's disease. HIIT produced higher HR and RPE than MICT, but end-exercise affect and post-program enjoyment were similarly positive. Attendance was moderate and two HIIT participants attended no sessions, showing feasibility constraints in this clinical population.

Methodology

  • 25 adults with Crohn's disease assigned to exercise groups in the parent feasibility trial; HIIT n=13 and MICT n=12.
  • 25 participants.
  • Cycle ergometer.
  • Work intervals: 1 min at 90% Wpeak.
  • Recovery: 1 min at 15% Wpeak.
  • Intensity: 90% Wpeak work intervals.
  • 28 min including 5-min warm-up at 15% Wpeak and 3-min cool-down at 15% Wpeak.
  • 3 sessions/week.
  • 12 weeks.
  • Secondary analysis of a three-arm randomized feasibility trial focused on exercise-group affect/enjoyment
  • Affective response, Perceived exertion and HR, Exercise enjoyment, and Peak power were tracked.

Outcomes

Heart rate and perceived exertion

HIIT elicited higher HR and RPE than MICT, while exertion decreased over time.

HR HIIT 173 +/- 8 vs MICT 128 +/- 6 bpm, p<0.001; RPE-L 5.5 +/- 1.6 vs 3.3 +/- 1.5 and RPE-C 5.1 +/- 1.7 vs 2.9 +/- 1.5, p=0.03 for both

Mixed

Affective response

End-exercise affect was similarly positive for HIIT and MICT.

No group effect p=0.25; no time effect p=0.94; HIIT 2.2 +/- 1.9 and MICT 2.1 +/- 1.4

No clear change

Enjoyment

PACES enjoyment scores were high and did not differ between groups.

HIIT 99.4 +/- 12.9 vs MICT 101.3 +/- 17.4, p=0.78

No clear change

Attendance and peak power

Attendance was moderate. HIIT improved peak power over time while MICT did not show a significant peak-power effect.

Attendance HIIT 62% vs MICT 75%; peak power group x time interaction reported with HIIT increases and p=0.05

Mixed

Insights

  • In carefully screened Crohn's disease patients, supervised cycling HIIT can be enjoyable despite higher RPE.
  • Attendance barriers such as work, illness, and holidays may dominate feasibility in clinical populations.
  • Do not generalize findings to active Crohn's disease or unsupervised HIIT.

Limitations

  • Small feasibility sample and secondary analysis.
  • Clinical population limited to quiescent or mildly active Crohn's disease.
  • Not powered for definitive effectiveness.
  • Enjoyment measured at one main post-intervention timepoint.
  • No crossover design; possible group imbalance.

Safety

  • The article states the parent trial had very few exercise-related adverse events but does not detail them. Screening excluded exercise contraindications and several higher-risk conditions.