![]() ![]() Summaryīiddle recommends that we focus our attention elsewhere if we want population-level gains in physical activity impacting public health. He proposes that, within an evolutionary health promotion framework, high-intensity interval training could be a successful population strategy for producing rapid physiological adaptations benefiting public health, independent of changes in total physical activity energy expenditure. Batterham claims that traditional physical activity promotion has been a spectacular failure. ![]() Biddle suggests that the way forward is to help the least active become more active rather than the already active to do more. He contends that the purported displeasure associated with this type of exercise has been overstated. Batterham argues that this appraisal is based on a constrained and outmoded definition of high-intensity interval training and that truly practical and scalable protocols have been - and continue to be - developed. This conclusion is based on an analysis of perceptions of competence, the psychologically aversive nature of high-intensity exercise, the affective component of attitudes, the less conscious elements of motivated behaviour that reflect our likes and dislikes, and analysis using the RE-AIM framework. Discussionīiddle maintains that high-intensity interval training cannot be a viable public health strategy as it will not be adopted or maintained by many people. In this paper we debate the issues concerning the likely success or failure of high-intensity interval training interventions for population-level health promotion. Rather, the effectiveness of this form of exercise is at stake. The efficacy of high-intensity interval training for a broad spectrum of cardio-metabolic health outcomes is not in question. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |