Why sprint interval training is inappropriate for a largely sedentary population.

Sarah J Hardcastle,Louisa Beale,Martin S Hagger,Hannah Ray

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01505

Sarah J Hardcastle, Louisa Beale + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01505

Copy DOI

Abstract

Public health practitioners and researchers in behavioral medicine recognize the need to find effective physical activity interventions and prescriptions to curb the growth in inactivity and prevent chronic illness (Conn et al., 2009; Hagger, 2010; Hardcastle et al., 2012; Katzmarzyk and Lear, 2012). For example, researchers in exercise physiology have focused on the minimal dose of exercise needed to gain favorable physiological adaptations to cardiovascular and metabolic systems (Gibala et al., 2012). Efforts to identify a minimal dose of exercise are linked to the problem of exercise adherence with few people meeting current physical activity guidelines of 30 min per day of moderate intensity exercise. Given that time is the most commonly cited barrier to exercise (Trost et al., 2002; Sequeira et al., 2011), exercise professionals have focused attention on the development of time-efficient exercise interventions (Gibala, 2007). A recent development is the advocacy of Sprint Interval Training (SIT) as a means to attain substantial health benefits with a lower overall exercise volume. SIT is characterized by repeated, brief (4–6 × <30 s), intermittent bursts of all-out exercise, interspersed by periods (approximately 4.5 min) of active or passive recovery (Gibala et al., 2012). Research has consistently demonstrated that participation in SIT results in a host of physiological adaptations including improvements in health and fitness indicators (Burgomaster et al., 2006, 2008; Gibala et al., 2006, 2012; Rossow et al., 2010; Tong et al., 2011). In addition, these improvements have been reported to be equal or superior to traditional continuous aerobic training despite SIT involving a substantially lower total overall training volume (Rossow et al., 2010; Tong et al., 2011; Gibala et al., 2012; Cocks et al., 2013). Consequently, SIT is being advocated as a time-efficient alternative intervention for the achievement of fitness and health benefits through exercise (Gibala, 2007; Whyte et al., 2013).

Highlights

In this article we contend that Sprint Interval Training (SIT) is unlikely to be taken up by the majority of the sedentary population and caution is needed before such training is advocated to the general public
Based on theory and research in exercise psychology, we contend that the prospect of participating in SIT for previously sedentary individuals is likely to be considered too arduous and may evoke anticipated perceived incompetence, lower self-esteem, and potential failure (Williams and Gill, 1995; Hein and Hagger, 2007; Lindwall et al, 2011)
We contend that should previously sedentary individuals be introduced to high intensity exercise of the type proposed in SIT it will likely evoke a high degree of negative affect that may lead to an avoidant response with the prospect of future sessions

Summary

Introduction

In this article we contend that SIT is unlikely to be taken up by the majority of the sedentary population and caution is needed before such training is advocated to the general public. The exclusive focus fails to consider whether a largely sedentary population will feel physically capable and sufficiently motivated to take up and maintain a regime of highly intense exercise.

Results

Conclusion