Evidence-based vs. social media based high-intensity interval training protocols: Physiological and perceptual responses

Hesketh KL, Church H, Kinnafick F, Shepherd SO, Wagenmakers AJM, Cocks M, Strauss JA

Question

Do HIIT protocols promoted on social media produce similar acute physiological, perceptual, and motivational responses to evidence-based laboratory and bodyweight HIIT protocols?

Summary

This randomized counterbalanced crossover study compared acute heart-rate, lactate, affect, enjoyment, and perceived competence responses to four single-session HIIT protocols in young recreationally active adults: two evidence-based protocols and two social-media video protocols. Bodyweight 60:60 HIIT produced physiological responses similar to laboratory cycling 60:60 HIIT and was more enjoyable than cycling and one social-media protocol. The 20:10 social-media protocol generated less time above 80% HRmax and lower lactate than the established protocols, showing that short, popular HIIT videos may not all produce equivalent high-intensity stimuli.

Methodology

Young recreationally active adults completing more than 1 but fewer than 4 structured exercise sessions per week.
27 participants.
Cycling and bodyweight exercise circuits.
Work intervals: 60 seconds, 20 seconds, or 40 seconds depending on protocol.
Recovery: 60 seconds, 10 seconds plus inter-set rest, or 20 seconds depending on protocol.
Intensity: 100% Wmax for cycling; as many repetitions as possible or video-guided self-paced bodyweight exercise; HR target assessed as >=80% HRmax.
11.5 to 20 minutes excluding 2-minute warmup.
One exposure per protocol in crossover design.
Acute single-session protocol comparison.
Randomized, counterbalanced crossover acute exercise study with four HIIT protocol visits after an initial maximal exercise test.
Heart-rate response, Blood lactate response, Affective response, and Enjoyment and perceived competence were tracked.

Outcomes

Time above HR >=80% HRmax

SM-20:10 produced significantly less time above the high-intensity HR criterion than all other protocols, while Ergo-60:60, BW-60:60, and SM-40:20 were not different from each other.

Ergo-60:60 13.9 +/- 4.9 min, BW-60:60 13.5 +/- 3.5 min, SM-40:20 12.1 +/- 2.4 min, SM-20:10 7.7 +/- 3.1 min; P<0.001.

Mixed

Proportion of intervals meeting HR >=80% HRmax

BW-60:60 had a higher proportion of intervals meeting the HR criterion than SM-20:10.

BW-60:60 93 +/- 10%, SM-20:10 74 +/- 20%, P=0.039; overall P=0.005.

Mixed

Blood lactate

SM-20:10 produced a smaller lactate increase than Ergo-60:60 and BW-60:60.

SM-20:10 +5.5 +/- 2.6 mmol/L vs Ergo-60:60 +7.4 +/- 2.6 mmol/L, P=0.002, and BW-60:60 +7.7 +/- 3.7 mmol/L, P<0.001.

Mixed

Enjoyment

BW-60:60 was more enjoyable than cycling Ergo-60:60 and social-media SM-40:20.

Interest/enjoyment subscale: BW-60:60 5.0 +/- 1.2 vs Ergo-60:60 4.4 +/- 1.2, P=0.020, and SM-40:20 4.3 +/- 1.2, P=0.008.

Mixed

Insights

A bodyweight 10 x 60-second protocol with 60-second recovery may be a strong app candidate because it matched cycling physiological stimulus and had higher enjoyment.
Popular social-media HIIT formats should not be assumed to create equivalent physiological stimulus; short 20:10 circuits may underdose time above target HR.
Perceived competence and exercise selection should be treated as programming variables, not cosmetic details.

Limitations

Acute study only; no long-term training adaptations or adherence outcomes.
Small young recreationally active sample.
Lab setting may not reflect home, gym, or outdoor HIIT experience.
Protocols differed in duration, work-rest ratio, exercise mode, and imposed versus self-selected intensity, limiting isolation of causal protocol components.
Findings cannot be generalized to all HIIT protocols or all social-media videos.

Safety

One participant could not finish the Ergo-60:60 cycling protocol due to fatigue.
Researchers provided technique correction to minimize injury risk during bodyweight protocols.
No adverse events were reported in the paper.