Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Year of publication
- 2018 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Keywords
- physical activity (2) (remove)
Institute
- Institut für Sportwissenschaft (2) (remove)
The aim was to examine certain aspects of circulatory, metabolic, hormonal, thermoregulatory, cognitive, and perceptual responses while sitting following a brief session of high-intensity interval exercise. Twelve students (five men; age, 22 ± 2 years) performed two trials involving either simply sitting for 180 min (SIT) or sitting for this same period with a 6-min session of high-intensity exercise after 60 min (SIT+HIIT). At T\(_0\) (after 30 min of resting), T\(_1\) (after a 20-min breakfast), T\(_2\) (after sitting for 1 h), T\(_3\) (immediately after the HIIT), T\(_4\), T\(_5\), T\(_6\), and T\(_7\) (30, 60, 90, and 120 min after the HIIT), circulatory, metabolic, hormonal, thermoregulatory, cognitive, and perceptual responses were assessed. The blood lactate concentration (at T\(_3\)–T\(_5\)), heart rate (at T\(_3\)–T\(_6\)), oxygen uptake (at T\(_3\)–T\(_7\)), respiratory exchange ratio, and sensations of heat (T\(_3\)–T\(_5\)), sweating (T\(_3\), T\(_4\)) and odor (T\(_3\)), as well as perception of vigor (T\(_3\)–T\(_6\)), were higher and the respiratory exchange ratio (T\(_4\)–T\(_7\)) and mean body and skin temperatures (T\(_3\)) lower in the SIT+HIIT than the SIT trial. Levels of blood glucose and salivary cortisol, cerebral oxygenation, and feelings of anxiety/depression, fatigue or hostility, as well as the variables of cognitive function assessed by the Stroop test did not differ between SIT and SIT+HIIT. In conclusion, interruption of prolonged sitting with a 6-min session of HIIT induced more pronounced circulatory and metabolic responses and improved certain aspects of perception, without affecting selected hormonal, thermoregulatory or cognitive functions.
Although it is becoming increasingly popular to monitor parameters related to training, recovery, and health with wearable sensor technology (wearables), scientific evaluation of the reliability, sensitivity, and validity of such data is limited and, where available, has involved a wide variety of approaches. To improve the trustworthiness of data collected by wearables and facilitate comparisons, we have outlined recommendations for standardized evaluation. We discuss the wearable devices themselves, as well as experimental and statistical considerations. Adherence to these recommendations should be beneficial not only for the individual, but also for regulatory organizations and insurance companies.