Why sprint interval training is inappropriate for a largely sedentary population

Abstract

We contend that although SIT appears to be an effective exercise modality for physiological benefit, it is unlikely to be effective as a means to promote regular participation in physical activity in a largely sedentary population. We have argued that SIT is inappropriate for sedentary individuals because engaging in such training requires high levels of motivation and confidence. In addition, high intensity exercise is likely to evoke to negative affect which may lead to subsequent avoidance of further exercise. SIT programmes of exercise are also relatively complex and involve a high degree of self-regulation, which may also be a barrier to continuation in those who are uninitiated. we contend that SIT should not necessarily be considered time efficient as a session would likely last at least 30 min. We would like to see further research that addresses the motivational factors and responses of sedentary people to SIT. Specifically, we propose the following research agenda to improve knowledge of SIT in sedentary populations: (1) the acceptability of, and affective responses to, SIT programmes; (2) the social cognitive and motivational factors that may be related to participation in, and adherence to, SIT programmes; (3) the degree of adherence to SIT programmes compared to programmes of continuous aerobic exercise of moderate intensity; and (4) whether SIT programmes can be transferred to natural settings outside of the supervised laboratory environment

A comparison of the health benefits of reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT) and moderate-intensity walking in type 2 diabetes patients

“…It has been proposed that caution is needed before advocating HIT interventions to the general population because the high exercise intensities will decrease motivation and may evoke a high degree of negative affect (Hardcastle et al, 2014). This may (Frazão et al, 2016;Saanijoki et al, 2015), or may not (Freese et al, 2014;Jung et al, 2014) be the case for HIT protocols that rely on many (4-10) longer (30-60 s) sprints, but the ratings of perceived exertion in response to two 20-s sprints as used in the REHIT protocol in the present study appear to be manageable, and the majority of participants (12 out of 16) stated a preference for performing REHIT rather than the walking intervention based on current physical activity recommendations.…”

Can Doping be a Good Thing? Using Psychoactive Drugs to Facilitate Physical Activity Behaviour

“…From an exercise adherence point of view, the main recommendation based on these findings is that moderateintensity exercise is preferable to vigorous exercise as the latter is more effortful and unpleasant [13,14]. This is a sensible recommendation because, at present, the only way to substantially reduce perception of effort and discomfort during exercise is to reduce exercise intensity.…”

Modified sprint interval training protocols. Part II. Psychological responses

“…However, because of SIT's strenuous nature, concerns have been raised regarding its tolerability for the general public (Hardcastle et al 2014;Biddle and Batterham 2015;Del Vecchio et al 2015;Astorino and Thum 2016;Jung et al 2016). Researchers have argued that SIT is not actually time-efficient because typical SIT sessions are ϳ30 min once warm-up and cooldown periods are taken into account (Hardcastle et al 2014).…”

“…Researchers have argued that SIT is not actually time-efficient because typical SIT sessions are ϳ30 min once warm-up and cooldown periods are taken into account (Hardcastle et al 2014). Another concern is that SIT may be perceived as too difficult, and a sedentary population is unlikely to feel sufficiently confident to engage in such a demanding exercise protocol (Biddle and Batterham 2015).…”