Might High-Intensity Interval Exercise Be Remembered as More Pleasurable? An Attempt to Test the Peak-End Rule in the Exercise Context

Abstract

Given humans’ limited ability to recall past experiences for evaluation, scholars have proposed the peak-end rule stating that if perceived discomfort at the end of an aversive experience is lower than the peak discomfort experienced, the aversive experience will be remembered more positively. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the peak-end rule as applied to high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE). Participants were 30 inactive men (M age = 27.9, SD = 5.2 years). In the first session they performed a graded exercise test on cycle-ergometer to determine their maximal aerobic power (MAP) (M = 233, SD = 35W); and, in the second and third sessions, they performed two HIIE protocols in randomized order: (a) Short trial – 20-minutes of HIIE, composed of 30-second efforts at 100% of MAP interspersed by 30-seconds of passive recovery; and (b) Long trial – 20-minutes of the short trial, plus 10-minutes more of HIIE, decreasing 3% of MAP in each additional bout, resulting in 70% of MAP in the last bout. During exercise, we recorded the participants’ rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and affect, using the Feeling Scale (FS). At 30-minutes post-exercise, we again recorded the participants’ affect, using the Global Affect Evaluation (GAE) and their session-RPE, and we recorded their enjoyment, using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). In the last session, the participants chose a favorite protocol to repeat. All sessions were interspersed by at least 72 hours. The 10-minutes extra HIIE in the Long-trial condition resulted decreased heart rate values (M = 157, SD = 13bpm to M = 144, SD = 14bpm; p < 0.001), but psychological responses during and after exercise did not differ, nor did participants’ preferred HIIE protocol. As the load drop for the Long-trial was not enough to change the psychological responses during exercise, there was no difference in the retrospective evaluation as the peak-end rule would have suggested.

Keywords

effort enjoyment pleasure remembering self affect heuristic

Introduction

A main objective of research in exercise psychology is to understand and influence the psychological processes responsible for making decisions about engaging in and adhering to exercise and remaining physically active over the long-term (Biddle & Mutrie, 2008). Early in this work, the cognitivist approach was the dominant theory behind it, suggesting that decision-making depends exclusively on the individual’s data collection and analysis (i.e., weighing the pros and cons about behavior and future consequences) (Ekkekakis & Dafermos, 2012). But a criticism of such a rational approach was that human choices often violate presupposed rationality (Kahneman, 2012; Rachlin, 1989; Zenko et al., 2016), since human rationality is limited (Ekkekakis, 2017). For example, most people are aware of the long-term benefits of exercise and the negative consequences of sedentary behavior, and yet, in contradiction to this awareness, they do not exercise (Ekkekakis & Dafermos, 2012). Another recurrent criticism of rationality in this decision in that it includes no hedonic component (i.e., affective responses – pleasure/displeasure) (Van der Pligt et al., 1997). These criticisms have been corrected by such post-cognitivist dual-process theories (Zenko et al., 2016) that consider the function of non-rational, experiential, automatic, and emotional influences on decision-making and behavior (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Zenko et al., 2016).

Affective influences on decision-making have been emphasized as the data gap that explains the individual’s resistance to logic or rationality in the decision of whether or not to exercise (Ekkekakis & Dafermos, 2012). The idea is that affective responses influence which behavior will be maintained or extinguished over the long-term (Skinner, 1953). Generally, people are inclined to repeat actions that make them feel good and avoid conditions that make them feel worse (Ekkekakis & Dafermos, 2012). Feelings of pleasure and displeasure vary across intensity and time during exercise, and a recent literature review summarized prior exercise studies showing that higher pleasure during exercise is related to future exercise practice (Rhodes & Kates, 2015).

According to Kahneman et al. (1993), our choices are not related exactly to how we feel during an experience, but rather, to how we remember feeling. Thus, memories are important to human decision-making and behavior, and how memories are created is of fundamental importance. What we record is not 100% of what we experience; rather, our minds are divided into the “experiencing self” and the “remembering self”. The experiencing self lives each moment and is responsible for answering questions like: “Does it hurt now?” The remembering self creates a memory of what the experiencing self actually encountered and is responsible for answering, “How was it, on the whole?” (Kahneman, 2012).

In his classical attempt to understand the two selves, Kahneman et al. (1993) compared a short trial and a long trial of an averse experience with the same intensity (immersing one’s hand in cold water). While the short trial finished at the peak moment of aversiveness, the long trial included 50% more time and finished at a moment that was ≅ 7% less aversive than the peak aversiveness. Participants classified the long trial as less aversive than the short trial; and 69% of participants chose to repeat the long trial, even though, in it, the experiencing self actually experienced more time in discomfort. In effect, the participants remembered the long trial as less aversive because the remembering self is influenced by both the moment of “peak” aversive intensity and the last moment or the “end” of the experience. The duration of these experiences tends not to be remembered; and this is called the “peak-end rule.”

Several studies have evaluated the peak-end rule in aversive experiments (Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993; Redelmeier & Kahneman, 1996; Varey & Kahneman, 1992), but no prior study has applied it to high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) like Kahneman et al. (1993) experiment. HIIE is characterized by successive periods of high-intensity effort that are interspersed with active or passive recovery periods (Buchheit & Laursen, 2013). As demonstrated in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis involving 33 studies, HIIE has been shown to elicit greater enjoyment than continuous exercise, even though it has been associated with lower affect values (Niven et al., 2020). Manipulatable variables in HIIE have included effort intensity and duration, pause intensity and duration, and number of exercise bouts (Buchheit & Laursen, 2013). Different combinations of these variables elicited different psychological responses. For example, shorter effort time showed more positive affect and enjoyment than longer effort time (Martinez et al., 2015; Townsend et al., 2017) and sessions with fewer bouts showed more positive affect and enjoyment than sessions with more bouts (Da Silva Machado et al., 2019). Perhaps manipulating HIIE variables (particularly recency of aversiveness) would influence memories invoking the heuristic affective peak-end rule to raise participants’ affective perceptions of HIIE and improve long term exercise adherence. In the present study, we attempted to invoke and test the peak-end rule as applied to HIIE. We hypothesized that the HIIE protocol with lower aversive intensity at the end of the session, despite being longer in length, would be remembered as more pleasurable, enjoyable, of lower aversive intensity, leading participants to not recall the duration of HIIE and prefer to repeat it.

Method

Participants

We recruited 37 volunteers, using posters around the university campus and digital promotion (e-mail and social media). Participant inclusion criteria were: (a) men, (b) aged 18-40 years, (c) insufficiently active (exercising less than 150 minutes per week at moderate intensity, or 75 minutes at vigorous intensity). Exclusion criteria were: (a) the presence of cardiovascular disorders or musculoskeletal complications that could disrupt the exercise sessions, and (b) taking medications. Following an explanation of all procedures, all participants read and signed an informed consent form. All procedures were approved by the local ethics committee.

Before starting the experimental trials, volunteers submitted to a check-up and a resting electrocardiogram in order to evaluate their cardiac functions. After the medical evaluation, four volunteers were ineligible to participate due to high blood pressure (n = 3) and cardiomegaly (n = 1). Three volunteers dropped out due to insufficient time to finish all sessions. Thus, the final sample consisted of 30 men.

Procedure

After informed consent and medical approval, participants attended four separate experimental sessions interspersed by at least 72 hours. In the first session they performed a step-graded exercise test (GXT) (to individualize a prescribed intensity for the next two sessions), became familiarized with the psychological measures that would be used in follow-up sessions, and completed a questionnaire about their exercise preference for or tolerance to exercise intensity (PRETIE-Q; Smirmaul et al., 2015). In the next two sessions, the participants performed two HIIE protocols – a long and a short trial, with the order of these trials randomized and counterbalanced, using a Researcher Randomizer (Urbaniak & Plous, 2013). In the final visit, the volunteers chose the HIIE protocol they preferred to repeat, and experimenters took anthropometric measurements. All sessions were performed at the same time of day to avoid circadian rhythm effects. Participants were instructed not to change their eating habits, to refrain from physical exercise and alcohol for 48 hours before each session, and to abstain from caffeine on the day of the exercise sessions. The participants were blinded to the study’s goal and the goals of each session; instead, they were told that the purpose of the study was “to investigate the influence of status of recovery on physiological and psychological responses to the same exercise repeated three times.” The experimental procedures are illustrated in Figure 1.

Graded Exercise Test

As noted, participants completed the PRETIE-Q (Smirmaul et al., 2015) on the first day, and they performed a cycling step GXT to assess their maximal aerobic power (MAP) (Excalibur, Lode/Netherlands). The initial load was established at 70 W and increased by 25 W each minute. Cadence was fixed at 70 rpm, and participants were instructed to perform the test until they were no longer able to continue. The test was finished when participants reached maximum voluntary exhaustion or were not able to maintain the load for five seconds at 70 rpm. The maximal load attained in the test was defined as the MAP. When the participant was not able to complete the 1-minute stage, we calculated the participant’s power according to the time remaining in the last stage, using the following formula: MAP = power of the final stage completed + [(seconds remaining in the final stage) x 25 W)/60 seconds].

Details regarding our psychological measures are presented below in the section labeled “Psychological Measures.” At the end of each stage, the participants were familiarized with rating of perceived exertion (RPE; Borg, 1998) and affect on the Feeling Scale (FS; Hardy & Rejeski, 1989). These scales were printed, and the participants informed the number corresponding to their effort/affect aloud. After the conclusion of GXT they reported their session-RPE (Foster et al., 1996) and Global Affect Evaluation (GAE; Hargreaves & Stych, 2013), and gave Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES; Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991). These scales were available for completion online. We recorded heart rate (HR) using an electrode transmitter belt (Polar RX800, T-31; Finland).

Exercise Sessions

On the second and third days the volunteers performed short and long trial HIIE’s, in a randomized order. As participants were blinded, they were not provided information about the length of protocols or how much time remained in a session, and no devices gave them any time information during the session.

Short Trial

The short trial was comprised of a 3-minute warm-up (40% MAP) followed by 20-minutes of HIIE. The effort phase had a duration of 30 seconds at 100% of MAP, and the pause phase consisted of 30 seconds of passive recovery. The warm-up and the effort phase were performed at 70 rpm. At pre-exercise, we collected the rating of perceived recovery (RPR) and FS data. During the exercise, we collected HR, FS and RPE at each 5-minute period; and 30-minutes post-exercise, we collected the PACES, GAE, and session-RPE data (Figure 2A).

Long Trial

The long HIIE trial was comprised of the same 3-minute warm-up and 20-minute HIIE as in the short trial, with the same intensity, time of effort, pause, and cadence. However, this protocol was 10-minutes longer (totaling 30 minutes), with the last 10 minutes involving a gradual decrease in intensity (3% of MAP each minute) and the last 1-minute bout decreased to 70% of MAP. This lengthier but decreasing intensity of the long HIIE trial follows the characteristics of Kahneman et al. (1993) longer aversive experience (i.e., 50% longer but less intense at the end). As in the short HIIE trial, we collected the participants’ RPR and FS responses at pre-exercise, collected HR, FS and RPE data in each 5-minute period during exercise, and collected PACES, GAE, and session-RPE data at 30-minutes post-exercise (see Figure 2B).

Anthropometric Data

We used body mass index (BMI) and skinfold thicknesses to assess body composition. To measure the skinfold thicknesses, we used an adipometer (CESCORF, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil) three times, on a rotational basis, for the following skinfold thicknesses: chest, mid-axillary, triceps, subscapular, abdominal, supra-iliac, and medial thigh. We used the median of the three measurements for data analysis. We estimated body density and fat percentage using Jackson et al. (1980) generalized equation and Siri’s (1961) equation.

Psychological Measures

The psychological measures utilized for this study were administered at pre-exercise, during exercise, and at 30-minutes post-exercise as noted above. All of the scales were administered in a standardized fashion.

Rating of Perceived Recovery (RPR)

Before exercise sessions (pre-exercise), we administered the RPR (Laurent et al., 2011) to assess and compare whether participants initiated the two sessions in a similar recovery condition. This scale ranges from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best recovery state (very well recovered) and 0 the worst recovery state (very poorly recovered). During the validation process of this scale, the authors (Laurent et al., 2011) reported that its sensitivity was 82% and its specificity was 81%, indicating that the use of this scale may allow individuals to identify sessions yielding improved or declined repeated sprint performance (relative to the previous bout) using it with reasonable accuracy.

Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

We assessed RPE during exercise with the 6-20 Borg scale (Borg, 1998), with response choices ranging from 6 (no exertion at all) to 20 (maximal exertion), using the stem question, “What is your perception of exertion right now?” To evaluate overall exertion during the exercise session, as the remembered HIIE experience, we used the session-RPE (Foster et al., 1996) 30 minutes after the exercise was completed. This scale ranges from 0 (rest) to 10 (maximal), and the participants are asked to rate the overall RPE they experienced during the exercise session. RPE represents a combination of various sensations related to the strain of physical work and stress. The Borg 6-20 presents good reliability (ICC = 0.98) (Chen et al., 2002).

Feeling Scale (FS)

To assess the participants’ affective responses before, during, and after exercise, we used the version of FS proposed by Hardy and Rejeski (1989), as translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese (Alves et al., 2019). This variable is characterized by a simple valence response (e.g., good/bad, pleasure/displeasure). Response choices on this scale range from +5 to −5, with anchors stipulated at zero (neutral) and at all odd integers, ranging from “Very Good” (+5) to “Very Bad” (−5), to the stem question “How do you currently feel?” The FS exhibited a good reliability for males (ICC = 0.79; Elsangedy et al., 2018) and FS reproducibility was high (CCI = 0.64, 95% CI 0.42, 0.77; Alves et al., 2019).

Global Affective Evaluation (GAE)

To measure the remembered overall feeling of pleasantness or unpleasantness of the HIIE experience, we used the global affective evaluation (GAE) scale (Hargreaves & Stych, 2013) after the exercise was completed. Response choices for this scale range from +10 (very pleasant experience) to -10 (very unpleasant experience), with 0 as the midpoint (neutral experience). The participants were asked to rate the overall amount of pleasantness or unpleasantness they had experienced during the exercise session.

Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES)

Thirty-minutes post-exercise, we administered the PACES version that has been translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese (Alves et al., 2019) in order to assess the participants’ enjoyment of the exercise session. The enjoyment construct in physical exercise is not as simple as the affective response, though there are varied definitions and extensive discussions (without consensus) concerning its meaning (Kimiecik & Harris, 1996). In effect, enjoyment is a feeling manifested by cognition and evaluation (Ekkekakis, 2013). The PACES consists of 18 items, and each item has two opposite poles (bipolar), separated by a 7-point scale (1 = “I enjoy it”; 7 = “I hate it”, 4 = “neutral”). Values of each item are summed, with a range of scores from 18–126. PACES has a high reliability (ICC = 0.93; Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991), and its Portuguese version reached an almost perfect reproducibility (CCI = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85, 0.94; Alves et al., 2019).

Preference for and Tolerance to Intensity of Exercise Questionnaire (PRETIE-Q)

To assess participants’ exercise preference and intensity tolerance before the study, we used the PRETIE-Q (Smirmaul et al., 2015). This questionnaire includes 16 items (eight items for preference and eight items for tolerance) with responses ranging from 1 (I totally disagree) to 5 (I totally agree). PRETIE-Q the test-retest reliability was 0.90 (95% CI = 0.84 – 0.93) for the Preference and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.82 – 0.93) for the Tolerance scale (Ekkekakis et al., 2005).

Preferred HIIE

On the final day, participants expected to repeat the same exercise; however, the researcher explained that because they had actually performed two different HIIE protocols (no information was given regarding their differences), we would now like them to choose which HIIE protocol they would prefer to repeat (i.e., the first or the second HIIE protocol performed). After they had chosen, participants answered an open-ended question about why they chose this one; and, lastly, they were asked to determine which protocol was the most intense and the longest.

Data Analysis

We presented descriptive results as means (and standard deviations). Categorical variables were: nutritional status by BMI (ACSM, 2011), exercise preference and intensity tolerance (PRETIE-Q score of ≥25 as higher; < 25 as lower). To verify that participants began their two exercise sessions in the same recovery condition (RPR) we used a dependent t-test. Subsequently, to compare the psychological (affect and RPE) and physiological (HR) effects of the first 20-minutes of exercise in both protocols (equal in load), we performed two-way repeated-measures ANOVAs. To compare the 10-minutes of extra exercise of the two HIIE protocols (with load drops on the long-trial) on affect, RPE and HR, we used a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. When a statistically significant difference was detected, we used the Bonferroni post hoc test, with the Greenhouse-Geisser correction as required. We calculated partial eta squared (ƞ²) to determine the effect size for ANOVAs, using 0.0099, 0.0588, and 0.1379 as cut-offs for small, medium, and large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). For the measures collected 30-minutes post-exercise (GAE, session-RPE and PACES) we performed a dependent t-test. Finally, the participants’ choice for the HIIE protocol was presented in frequency and percentage of the sample, and a binomial probability test was used to evaluate if there was a difference between HIIE protocol choices. Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics 23, with statistical significance set at 5% (p < 0.05).

Results

Descriptive data are presented in Table 1. Thirty insufficiently active men completed both exercise trials, of whom 36.7% were eutrophic, 40.0% were overweight, and 23.3% were obese according to their body mass index (BMI). Nineteen (63.3%) participants preferred higher-intensity exercise while 11 (36.7%) preferred lower-intensity exercise. In terms of exercise tolerance, 13 (43.3%) reported higher-intensity exercise tolerance (43.3%), and 17 (56.7%) reported lower-intensity exercise tolerance. The RPE of the last stage of the GXT averaged 17 (SD = 2).

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics Expressed as Means (and Standard Deviations).

	M	SD
Age (years)	27.9	(5.2)
Height (meters)	1.77	(0.08)
Body mass (kg)	83.43	(14.32)
Body mass index (kg.m⁻²)	26.78	(3.96)
Body fat (%)	22.5	(7.9)
Preference (a.u.)	28	(7)
Tolerance (a.u.)	25	(5)
Maximal aerobic power (watts)	233	(35)
Maximal heart rate (bpm)	183	(11)

Note: a.u. = arbitrary units; bpm = beats per minute.

As shown in Table 2, there were no differences in participants’ RPR as sessions began (t₍₂₉₎ = −0.379; p = 0.707). Following the first 20-minutes of HIIE, there was no difference in participants’ reported affect between long and short trials (F_(1,29) = 0.037; p = 0.850; partial ƞ² = 0.001), nor was there any significant trial by time interaction effect (F_{(2.004,58.113)} = 0.302; p = 0.741; partial ƞ² = 0.010). However, a main effect for time was observed (F_{(1.507,43.712)} = 31.397; p < 0.001; partial ƞ² = 0.520 [Large]), with post-hoc testing revealing that participants’ affect decreased over time (p < 0.05). For RPE, there was no significant difference between trials (F_(1,29) = 0.001; p = 0.976; partial ƞ² = 0.000) or for a trial by time interaction effect (F_{(2.031,58.905)} = 2.385; p = 0.100; partial ƞ² = 0.076); but, again, a main effect for time was observed (F_{(1.380,40.028)} = 57.493; p < 0.001; partial ƞ² = 0.665 [Large]), with RPE having increased across sessions (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference for HR between trials (F_(1,28) = 0.735; p = 0.398; partial ƞ² = 0.026), nor was there any significant trial by time interaction effect (F_{(1.384,38.766)} = 0.793; p = 0.417; partial ƞ² = 0.028). However, a main effect for time was observed (F_{(1.481,41.482)} = 564.498; p = 0.000; partial ƞ² = 0.953 [Large]) with increased HR during the first 20-minutes of HIIE (p < 0.001) (Figure 3).

Table 2.

Participant Means (and Standard Deviations) for all Variables Collected at Pre-Exercise and at 30-Minutes Post-Exercise on the Two HIIE Protocols.

	Short-trial HIIE	Long-trial HIEE
Rating of perceived recovery – RPR (a.u.)	7.8 (2.3)	7.9 (1.9)
Session-RPE (a.u.)	5.5 (2.3)	5.1 (1.8)
Global affect evaluation – GAE (a.u.)	7 (4)	7 (3)
PACES (a.u.)	102 (14)	101 (13)

Regarding the 10-minutes extra of HIIE with decreased load on the long-trial, there was no significant difference in participants’ affect (F_{(1.357,39.344)} = 0.515; p = 0.581; partial ƞ² = 0.019), or RPE responses (F_{(1.563,45.323)} = 1.336; p = 0.271; partial ƞ² = 0.044), but there was a significant time effect for HR (F_(2,56) = 169.258; p < 0.001; partial ƞ² = 0.858 [Large]) with decreased HR over the time (p < 0.001) (Figure 3).

Regarding the variables collected 30-minutes post-exercise, there were no significant differences for GAE (t₍₂₉₎ = −0.418; p = 0.679), session-RPE (t₍₂₉₎ = 1.119; p = 0.272) and enjoyment responses (t₍₂₉₎ = 0.683; p = 0.500) between trials (see Table 2).

Regarding participants’ choices for an HIIE to repeat, 19 participants chose the short trial (63.3%) and eleven chose the long trial (36.7%). The binomial probability test showed no significant difference in participants’ choices for preferred HIIE protocol to repeat (observable: 0.63/0.37; latent: 0.50; p = 0.200). Regarding their HIIE impressions, 19 (63.3%) participants found the short trial more intense, while nine (30%) found the long trial more intense, and two (6.7%) reported no difference between them. Concerning the duration of the HIIE protocols, eight (26.7%) participants found the short trial longer, twenty (66.7%) found the long trial longer, and two (6.7%) reported no difference in their lengths.

After excluding the three participants who did not perceive differences in intensity and/or duration between protocols, only 11 (40.7%) participants found the long trial lighter and longer as expected by the peak-end rule. Of these 11, seven (63.64%) chose the short trial to repeat, and four (36.36%) chose long-trial to repeat. Coincidentally, the seven who chose the short-trial to repeat all presented a higher preference for exercise intensity, and the four who chose the longer-trial to repeat all had a lower preference for exercise intensity

Discussion

Our main findings in the present study were that there were no differences in participants’ reported RPE (at the end of the exercise and during session-RPE), affective responses (at the end and globally), or enjoyment of the exercise (when measured between trials), even though the long trial resulted in a lower HR (at the end of the exercise). Although our hypothesis of a favoring the long trial HIIE was rejected, our protocol was designed with support from a study that evaluated the peak-end rule in other context such as an aversion experience (Kahneman et al., 1993). Specifically, we followed Kahneman et al. (1993) design and kept the same intensity over the short-trial because the effort accumulated over time induces an increase in RPE and a decrease in affect (Da Silva Machado et al., 2019; Frazão et al., 2016; Kellogg et al., 2019; Marques et al., 2020; Olney et al., 2018); thus, generating the worst values of psychological responses at the end of the trial (peak of intensity). Indeed, we added 50% duration with a gradual decrease in intensity in the long-trial, and although we did not find statistical differences for the global scales, 63.3% of participants found the shortest protocol the most intense protocol.

As the RPE is a ratio scale, its score is expected to increase in parallel and in a linear fashion with increases in HR and load (Borg, 1998). In the present study, the decreased load in the long-trial decreased HR as expected, but RPE was not significantly changed. It has been suggested that RPE is also sensitive to the duration of effort (Pinheiro et al., 2014), and this appears to explain these results. Although the drop in load resulted in a drop in HR in the long-trial, the extra exercise time appears to have influenced RPE such that the 30% load drop was not enough to decrease the RPE response.

As with the RPE, there were no changes to participants’ self-reported affect on the FS. The FS is an ordinal scale with its underlying psychometric rigor weaker than that required for ratio scales; consequently, it is less sensitive to changes (Stevens, 1971). Hardy and Rejeski (1989) arbitrarily chose the values and descriptors for the construction of the FS, and, years after its development, Ekkekakis (2013) correlated its scores with the exercise intensity domains. When people exercise at the moderate domain, most reveal an increasing level of pleasure or maintain a similar score to the pre-value. At the heavy domain, exercise becomes increasingly challenging; however, some individuals feel better, while others start to feel worse. Finally, when exercising at the severe intensity domain, values on physiological measures rise until exhaustion and the body faces a state of severe stress, at which point a universal and powerful feeling of displeasure is generated. It is important to highlight that these findings about pleasure and displeasure and exercise domains were founded on research with continuous exercise, making it unclear how the predictions of dual-mode theory and psychological responses work for the interval exercise used in this study (Stork et al., 2017).

There are studies in which researchers manipulated different HIIE variables (Martinez et al., 2015; Townsend et al., 2017; Da Silva Machado et al., 2019; Kellogg et al., 2019). Some reported higher enjoyment and affect with shorter duration intervals (Martinez et al., 2015; Townsend et al., 2017), others found that low-volume HIIE led to higher enjoyment and affect (Da Silva Machado et al., 2019), and one showed that imposed intensity induced higher affect than self-selected HIIE intensity (Kellogg et al., 2019). After further research has enhanced our understanding of affect and RPE during HIIE protocols (i.e., the experiencing self), a second future advance would be to evaluate how memories of the peak and end sessions are formed (i.e., the remembering self). According to Kahneman et al. (1993), the two moments that are most memorable are the peak intensity and the end of the experience (peak-end rule), whereas aversiveness duration has less or no significant influence on memory (duration neglect). In the present study, we expected that the HIIE long-trial would end with higher affect values (i.e., more positive affect) and lower RPE values (i.e., less perceived effort) and that this would lead to higher GAE values (i.e., greater enjoyment) and smaller session-RPE values when compared to the HIIE short-trial. But, since no differences were found for RPE and affect corresponding to the load drop (i.e., experiential-self), there were no differences for post-exercise responses (i.e., self-remembering). Perhaps a study design as that employed by Brewer et al. (2000) or by Varey and Kahneman (1992), manipulating intensity over the short-trial (i.e., increased over the time and ending with the higher intensity) beyond the extra time manipulation in the long-trial (i.e., intensity decrease) could have brought results as we hypothesized.

Hargreaves and Stych (2013) also evaluated the influence of peak and end experiences of affect for the remembering self, using the GAE after a continuous exercise. They found a strong correlation between affect and GAE (r = 0.68) at peak aversiveness exercise and between affect and GAE (r = 0.76) at post-exercise. Decker and Ekkekakis (2017) investigated the affect at peak and end sessions during continuous exercise and found that HIIE experiences were moderately correlated with post-exercise enjoyment responses at these points (r = 0.58 and r = 0.46 respectively). However, both studies (Decker & Ekkekakis, 2017; Hargreaves & Stych, 2013) differed from the present study in that previous studies relied on participants comprised of sedentary women, while we studied only men. Of note, Olney et al. (2018) suggested that affective responses during HIIE were not different between men and women, even though women presented higher values of post-exercise enjoyment than men.

Despite their evaluation of the remembering self, the aforementioned studies did not design an exercise protocol to evaluate the peak-end rule (Kahneman et al., 1993) by adding more time experiencing an end session with a lower intensity of discomfort than the peak discomfort; thus, they did not evaluate whether exercise duration was a relevant or neglected participant influence. Brewer et al. (2000) investigated the peak-end rule in two different studies. In the first study, participants read descriptions of the RPEs of fictitious people during two hypothetical continuous exercise protocols, one lasting 15 minutes, with increasing intensity every five minutes, and the other lasting the same 15 minutes, but with an extra five minutes of exercise. They found lower RPE at the end of this imagined experience, compared with the RPE at peak discomfort. After they read the hypothetical situation to participants, the participants provided a global evaluation of how bad these two experiences were. They evaluated a short trial as worse than a long trial, suggesting that the peak-end rule of judging an exercise experience was supported. Their second study tested these findings with physically active men and women, performing the same two continuous exercise sessions as were created in study 1, both with the same initial increment of exercise intensity, but one of them being 33% longer in duration than the other, with a decrease in intensity of 19% at the end. The results of this second study did not corroborate those found in the first, meaning that there was no difference in perceived averseness between short and long trials.

These above-mentioned results suggest that when participants interpret possible exercise effects without actually exercising (as in study 1), the peak-end rule appears to be effective. However, this result was not confirmed when participants actually performed the exercise. Although the long protocol resulted in a drop in RPE, the perceived averseness was the same among the protocols. An important point that should be highlighted concerning the global evaluation adopted by Brewer et al. (2000) is that it has only a negative valence, i.e., the anchor was “how bad these two experiences were”, and the scale varies from 0 (corresponding to not bad at all) and 100 (corresponding to extremely bad). It is important to emphasize that different authors (Ekkekakis, 2013; Hardy & Rejeski, 1989; Ladwig et al., 2017) indicate that exercise can induce either a positive or negative affect, and this scale neglects the positive affect.

Brewer et al. (2000), besides testing the peak-end rule in a global evaluation of how bad the overall experience was, also evaluated the participants’ preferred choice between the long and short continuous exercise sessions. Although 65% chose the long protocol, 45% found it more aversive. Thus, some participants chose the long trial because they found it more aversive (and presumably more effective toward muscle gain) and others because they found it less aversive. In the present study, we found this result as well. Some people chose the exercise that they remembered as more difficult, and the same people had a higher preference for greater exercise intensity.

Apparently, the process of choosing a physical exercise differed from the results suggested by prior studies that have evaluated the peak-end rule in aversive and choice experiments (Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993). In aversive experiments the participants tended to prefer the trial that has less aversive memory, but, in the context of physical exercise, judgments of intensity may be affected by differences among exercisers as to whether intensity is an aversive construct. There is a personal exerciser profile for preferring exercise intensity that is capable of modifying affective responses. Box and Petruzzello (2020) showed that people who have a higher preference for exercise intensity present higher values of affect during HIIE than those who present a lower preference for exercise intensity. Some marketing messages state that to lose weight or to achieve health and fitness benefits it is inevitable and necessary to do “uncomfortable” exercise, as seen by the classic ‘no pain no gain’ adage (Backhouse et al., 2007). People receive other sensations from exercise, that may include post-exercise relief that the exercise has finished, or a sense of accomplishment from having achieved a goal, completed the session, or having been active (Parfitt & Hughes, 2009). The enjoyment responses assessed through PACES includes other sensations that exercise can induce, with questions like “It gives me a strong sense of accomplishment”, and “I find it energizing”.

Limitations and Directions for Further Research

Among this study’s limitations was that RPE was not reduced in the long-trial, even though the HR decreased at the end of it. Thus, participants did not feel the load reduction, suggesting that we may have not successfully impacted affective responses as planned in the participants’ experience of the two trials. To clarify the peak-and end rule in the exercise context, further research needs to test intensity manipulation over the short trial (i.e., increase intensity) and not only manipulates the long-trial (i.e., decrease intensity as in the present study) to highlight these moments of the exercising experience. Moreover, even though we scheduled both trials at the same hour, we did not consider whether there were participant chronotype differences in the two groups that might have introduced a circadian preference confounding the study manipulation (Vitale et al., 2017)

Conclusion

This was the first study to test the peak-end rule for recalling and judging experience preferences as applied to HIIE. We designed our research protocol to test the peak-end rule as a determinant for what characteristics of HIIE participants might prefer to repeat as a means of inducing relatively sedentary men toward continuous engagement in more physical activity. Contrary to our hypothesis, the longer HIIE trial with a less intense experience at the end did not alter the participants’ psychological and perceptual responses as predicted. There appeared to have been no difference in the recall of this experience and the short trial experience, as the peak-end rule would have suggested. We discuss a number of possible reasons for these results, including the likelihood that high intensity exercise experiences may not always be perceived as aversive and some important limitations to our research design. Further studies are needed to better understand what and how HIIE variables might be manipulated to best capitalize upon a peak-and-end rule effect on participants’ perceptual and affect responses to HIIE.

Supplemental Material

sj-zip-1-pms-10.1177_00315125211010047 - Supplemental material for Might High-Intensity Interval Exercise Be Remembered as More Pleasurable? An Attempt to Test the Peak-End Rule in the Exercise Context

Supplemental material, sj-zip-1-pms-10.1177_00315125211010047 for Might High-Intensity Interval Exercise Be Remembered as More Pleasurable? An Attempt to Test the Peak-End Rule in the Exercise Context by Elaine Domingues Alves, Ursula Ferreira Julio, Valéria Leme Gonçalves Panissa, Emerson Franchini and Monica Yuri Takito in Perceptual and Motor Skills

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Elaine Alves was supported by National Council for Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq 133949/2017-6), Valéria Panissa was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP 2015/11302-3 and 2017/07304-6), Emerson Franchini was supported by CNPq (301003/2019-0) and Monica Takito was supported by FAPESP (2017/19280-4).

ORCID iDs

Elaine Domingues Alves

Valéria Leme Gonçalves Panissa

Monica Yuri Takito

Supplemental material

Supplementary material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Elaine Domingues Alves holds a master’s degree in Physical Education and Sport. Member of the High-intensity intermittent exercise phsyiology research group.

Ursula Ferreira Julio holds a PhD in Physical Education, is a researcher at the School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, Brazil and Assistant Professor at the University of Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.

Valéria Leme Gonçalves Panissa holds a PhD in Physical Education and Sport and is collaborator professor at School of Physical Education and Sport at University of São Paulo.

Emerson Franchini holds a PhD in Physical Education and Sport and is an Associate Professor in the School of Physical Education and Sport at University of São Paulo, where he is also the coordinator of the High-intensity intermittent exercise physiology research group.

Monica Yuri Takito holds a PhD in Public Health and is an Assistant Professor in the School of Physical Education and Sport at University of São Paulo. Member of the High-intensity intermittent exercise phsyiology research group.

References

Alves

E. D.

Panissa

V. L. G.

Barros

B. J.

Franchini

Takito

M. Y.

(2019). Translation, adaptation, and reproducibility of the physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES) and feeling scale to Brazilian Portuguese. Sport Sciences for Health, 15(2), 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-018-0516-4

Backhouse

S. H.

Ekkekakis

Bidle

S. J. H.

Foskett

Williams

(2007). Exercise makes people feel better but people are inactive: Paradox or artifact? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29(4), 498–517. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.4.498

Biddle

S. J. H.

Mutrie

(2008). Psychology of physical activity: Determinants, well-being & interventions (2nd ed). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Borg

(1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Human Kinects.

Box

A. G.

Petruzzello

S. J.

(2020). Why do they do it? Differences in high-intensity exercise-affect between those with higher and lower intensity preference and tolerance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 47, 101521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.04.011

Brewer

B. W.

Manos

T. M.

McDevitt

A. V.

Cornelius

A. E.

Van Raalte

J. L.

(2000). The effect of adding lower intensity work on perceived aversiveness of exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.22.2.119

Buchheit

Laursen

P. B.

(2013). High-intensity interval training, solutions to the programming puzzle. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 43(5), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0029-x

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.

Chen

M. J.

Fan

Moe

S. T.

(2002). Criterion validity of the Borg rating of perceived scale in healthy individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(11), 873–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404102320761787

10.

Da Silva Machado

D. G.

Costa

E. C.

Ray

Beale

Chatzisarantis

N. L.

de Farias-Junior

L. F.

Hardcastle

S. J.

(2019). Short-term psychological and physiological effects of varying the volume of High-Intensity interval training in healthy men. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 126(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512518809734

11.

Decker

E. S.

Ekkekakis

(2017). More efficient, perhaps, but at what price? Pleasure and enjoyment responses to high-intensity interval exercise in low-active women with obesity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.09.005

12.

Ekkekakis

(2013). Pleasure from the exercising body: Two centuries of changing outlooks in psychological thought. In D. B. Cook, L. L. Craft, S. N. Culos-Reed, P. Ekkekakis, J. L. Etnier, M. Hamer, K. A. Martin Ginis, J. E. Reed, J. A. Smits, & M. Ussher (Orgs.), Routledge handbook of physical activity and mental health (1st ed., pp. 35–56). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2013.06.003

13.

Ekkekakis

(2017). People have feelings! Exercise psychology in paradigmatic transition. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.018

14.

Ekkekakis

Dafermos

(2012). Exercise is a many-splendored thing, but for some it does not feel so splendid: Staging a resurgence of hedonistic ideas in the quest to understand exercise behavior. In Acevedo

E. O.

(Org.), The oxford handbook of exercise psychology (pp. 295–335). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195394313.013.0016

15.

Ekkekakis

Hall

E. E.

Petruzzello

S. J.

(2005). Some like it vigorous: Measuring individual differences in the preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27(3), 350–374. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.27.3.350

16.

Elsangedy

H. M.

Machado

D. G. D. S.

Krinski

Duarte Do Nascimento

P. H.

De Amorim Oliveira

G. T.

Santos

T. M.

Hargreaves

E. A.

Parfitt

(2018). Let the pleasure guide your resistance training intensity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 50(7), 1472–1479. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000001573

17.

Foster

Daines

Hector

Snyder

A. C.

Welsh

(1996). Athletic performance in relation to training load. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 95(6), 370–374.

18.

Frazão

D. T.

de Farias Junior

L. F.

Dantas

T. C. B.

Krinski

Elsangedy

H. M.

Prestes

Hardcastle

S. J.

Costa

E. C.

(2016). Feeling of pleasure to high-intensity interval exercise is dependent of the number of work bouts and physical activity status. PLoS One, 11(3), e0152752–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152752

19.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Kahneman

(1993). Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 45–55.

20.

Hardy

C. J.

Rejeski

W. J.

(1989). Not what, but how one feels: The measurement of affect during exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(3), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.11.3.304

21.

Hargreaves

E. A.

Stych

(2013). Exploring the peak and end rule of past affective episodes within the exercise context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.003

22.

Jackson

A. S.

Pollock

M. L.

Ward

A. N. N.

(1980). Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 12(3), 175–181.

23.

Kahneman

(2012). Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

24.

Kahneman

Fredrickson

B. L.

Schreiber

C. A.

Donald

Redelmeier

D. A.

(1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401–405.

25.

Kendzierski

DeCarlo

K. J.

(1991). Physical activity enjoyment scale: Two validation studies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 50–64.

26.

Kellogg

Cantacessi

McNamer

Holmes

von Bargen

Ramirez

Gallagher

Vargas

Santia

Rodriguez

Astorino

T. A.

(2019). Comparison of psychological and physiological responses to imposed vs. self-selected high-intensity interval training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(11), 2945–2952. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002528

27.

Kimiecik

J. C.

Harris

A. T.

(1996). What is enjoyment ? A conceptual/definitional analysis with implications for sport and exercise psychology. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.3.247

28.

Ladwig

M. A.

Hartman

M. E.

Ekkekakis

(2017). Affect-based exercise prescription. ACSM’s. ACSM'S Health & Fitness Journal, 21(5), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1249/FIT.0000000000000332

29.

Laurent

C. M.

Green

J. M.

Bishop

P. A.

Sjökvist

Schumacker

R. E.

Richardson

M. T.

Curtner-Smith

(2011). A practical approach to monitoring recovery: Development of a perceived recovery status scale. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(3), 620–628. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c69ec6

30.

Marques

Alves

Henrique

Franchini

(2020). Positive affective and enjoyment responses to four High-Intensity interval exercise protocols. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 127(4), 742–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512520918748

31.

Martinez

Kilpatrick

M. W.

Salomon

Jung

M. E.

Little

J. P.

(2015). Affective and enjoyment responses to high-intensity interval training in overweight-to-obese and insufficiently active adults. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/138-149.10.1371/journal.pone.0197124

32.

Niven

Laird

Saunders

D. H.

Phillips

S. M.

(2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of affective responses to acute high intensity interval exercise compared with continuous moderate-and high-Intensity exercise. Health Psychology Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1728564

33.

Olney

Wertz

LaPorta

Mora

Serbas

Astorino

T. A.

(2018). Comparison of acute physiological and psychological responses between moderate-intensity continuous exercise and three regimes of high-intensity interval training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(8), 2130–2138. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002154

34.

Parfitt

Hughes

(2009). The exercise intensity–affect relationship: Evidence and implications for exercise behavior. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 7(2), S34–S41.

35.

Pinheiro

F. A.

Viana

Pires

F. O.

(2014). Percepção subjetiva de esforço como marcadora da duração tolerável de exercício. Motricidade, 10(2), 100–106. p

36.

Rachlin

(1989). Reinforcement and punishment. In Judgment, decision, and choice: a cognitive/behavioral synthesis (1st ed., pp. 113–146). W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

37.

Redelmeier

D. A.

Kahneman

(1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain, 66(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/PTC.2015.7232658

38.

Rhodes

R. E.

Kates

(2015). Can the affective response to exercise predict future motives and physical activity behavior? A systematic review of published evidence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 49(5), 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9704-5

39.

Siri

W. E.

(1961). Body composition from fluid spaces and density: Analysis of methods. In Brozek

University

Henschel

(Orgs.), Techniques for measuring body composition (1st ed., Vol. 61, pp. 223–244). National Academy of Sciences.

40.

Skinner

B. F.

(1953). Operant behavior. In l Simon

Schuster

m L.

(Orgs.), Science and human behavior (1st ed., pp. 59–90). Free Prass. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2003.80-345

41.

Smirmaul

B. P. C.

Ekkekakis

Teixeira

I. P.

Nakamura

P. M.

Kokubun

(2015). Questionário de preferência e tolerância da intensidade de exercício: Versão em português do brasil [Exercise intensity preference and tolerance questionnaire: Brazilian Portuguese version]. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano, 17(5), 550–564. https://doi.org/10.5007/1980-0037.2015v17n5p550

42.

Stevens

S. S.

(1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78(5), 426–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031324

43.

Stork

M. J.

Banfield

L. E.

Gibala

M. J.

Ginis

K. A. M.

(2017). A scoping review of the psychological responses to interval exercise: Is interval exercise a viable alternative to traditional exercise? Health Psychology Review, 11(4), 324–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1326011

44.

Townsend

L. K.

Islam

Dunn

Eys

Robertson-Wilson

Hazell

T. J.

(2017). Modified sprint interval training protocols. Part II. Psychological responses. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 42(4), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2016-0479

45.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (New York, N.Y.), 185(4157), 1124–1131.

46.

Urbaniak

G. C.

Plous

(2013). Research randomizer (version 4.0) [computer software]. http://www.randomizer.org/

47.

Van der Pligt

Zeelenberg

van Dijk

W. W.

de Vries

N. K.

Richard

(1997). Affect, attitudes and decisions: Let’s be more specific. European Review of Social Psychology, 8(1), 33–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779643000074

48.

Varey

Kahneman

(1992). Experiences extended across time: Evaluation of moments and episodes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 169–195.

49.

Vitale

J. A.

La Torre

Baldassarre

Piacentini

M. F.

Bonato

(2017). Ratings of perceived exertion and self-reported mood state in response to high intensity interval training. A crossover study on the effect of chronotype. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1232. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01232

50.

Zenko

Ekkekakis

Ariely

(2016). Can you have your vigorous exercise and enjoy it too? Ramping intensity down increases postexercise, remembered, and forecasted pleasure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0286

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.17 MB

0.00 MB