The feasibility and acceptability of high-intensity interval training for adults with mental illness: A pilot study

Justin J. Chapman; Jeff S. Coombes; Wendy J. Brown; Asaduzzaman Khan; Suneel Chamoli; Nancy A. Pachana; Nicola W. Burton

doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2017.09.007

The feasibility and acceptability of high-intensity interval training for adults with mental illness: A pilot study

Justin J. Chapman^*, Jeff S. Coombes, Wendy J. Brown, Asaduzzaman Khan, Suneel Chamoli, Nancy A. Pachana, Nicola W. Burton

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

137 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction

Adults with mental illness have increased risk of cardiovascular disease. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is more efficacious than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF); however, the utility of HIIT for this group is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and acceptability of HIIT and MICT in adults with mental illness. A secondary aim was to compare the efficacy of HIIT and MICT on mental health and fitness.

Method

Inactive adults with self-reported mental illness participated in aerobic exercise three times/week over 12 weeks. Participants were randomised to HIIT (3x4-min bouts at 85–95% peak heart rate [HR_peak] interspersed with 3-min recovery bouts) or MICT (1 × 30-min at 65–75% HR_peak). Feasibility was assessed using attendance and withdrawal rates. Acceptability and mental health was assessed using self-administered questionnaires. Fitness was measured using indirect calorimetry during a graded fitness test to exhaustion.

Results

24 participants consented and 16 participants began the intervention (HIIT, n = 8; MICT, n = 8). Completion rates (HIIT, n = 4; MICT, n = 5) and median attendances were similar (HIIT = 81%, MICT = 86%). Most participants were satisfied with their allocation (88% MICT; 100% HIIT), and found the exercise enjoyable (63% MICT; 100% HIIT). Equal numbers reported that they would like to continue the exercise (63%), and that they would feel confident doing so without supervision (75%). No significant differences were found between groups on mental health and fitness.

Conclusion

This preliminary evidence suggests that HIIT was as acceptable and feasible as MICT for adults with mental illness.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	40-48
Number of pages	9
Journal	Mental Health and Physical Activity
Volume	13
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2017.09.007
Publication status	Published - Oct 2017
Externally published	Yes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.mhpa.2017.09.007

The feasibility and acceptability of high-intensity interval training for adults with mental illness: A pilot studyAccepted author manuscript, 904 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{2bbc893f1cad461ba2548fcf762f7bbd,

title = "The feasibility and acceptability of high-intensity interval training for adults with mental illness: A pilot study",

abstract = "Introduction Adults with mental illness have increased risk of cardiovascular disease. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is more efficacious than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF); however, the utility of HIIT for this group is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and acceptability of HIIT and MICT in adults with mental illness. A secondary aim was to compare the efficacy of HIIT and MICT on mental health and fitness. Method Inactive adults with self-reported mental illness participated in aerobic exercise three times/week over 12 weeks. Participants were randomised to HIIT (3x4-min bouts at 85–95% peak heart rate [HRpeak] interspersed with 3-min recovery bouts) or MICT (1 × 30-min at 65–75% HRpeak). Feasibility was assessed using attendance and withdrawal rates. Acceptability and mental health was assessed using self-administered questionnaires. Fitness was measured using indirect calorimetry during a graded fitness test to exhaustion. Results 24 participants consented and 16 participants began the intervention (HIIT, n = 8; MICT, n = 8). Completion rates (HIIT, n = 4; MICT, n = 5) and median attendances were similar (HIIT = 81%, MICT = 86%). Most participants were satisfied with their allocation (88% MICT; 100% HIIT), and found the exercise enjoyable (63% MICT; 100% HIIT). Equal numbers reported that they would like to continue the exercise (63%), and that they would feel confident doing so without supervision (75%). No significant differences were found between groups on mental health and fitness. Conclusion This preliminary evidence suggests that HIIT was as acceptable and feasible as MICT for adults with mental illness.",

author = "Chapman, {Justin J.} and Coombes, {Jeff S.} and Brown, {Wendy J.} and Asaduzzaman Khan and Suneel Chamoli and Pachana, {Nancy A.} and Burton, {Nicola W.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017 Elsevier Ltd",

year = "2017",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.mhpa.2017.09.007",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

pages = "40--48",

journal = "Mental Health and Physical Activity",

issn = "1755-2966",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The feasibility and acceptability of high-intensity interval training for adults with mental illness: A pilot study

AU - Chapman, Justin J.

AU - Coombes, Jeff S.

AU - Brown, Wendy J.

AU - Khan, Asaduzzaman

AU - Chamoli, Suneel

AU - Pachana, Nancy A.

AU - Burton, Nicola W.

PY - 2017/10

Y1 - 2017/10

N2 - Introduction Adults with mental illness have increased risk of cardiovascular disease. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is more efficacious than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF); however, the utility of HIIT for this group is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and acceptability of HIIT and MICT in adults with mental illness. A secondary aim was to compare the efficacy of HIIT and MICT on mental health and fitness. Method Inactive adults with self-reported mental illness participated in aerobic exercise three times/week over 12 weeks. Participants were randomised to HIIT (3x4-min bouts at 85–95% peak heart rate [HRpeak] interspersed with 3-min recovery bouts) or MICT (1 × 30-min at 65–75% HRpeak). Feasibility was assessed using attendance and withdrawal rates. Acceptability and mental health was assessed using self-administered questionnaires. Fitness was measured using indirect calorimetry during a graded fitness test to exhaustion. Results 24 participants consented and 16 participants began the intervention (HIIT, n = 8; MICT, n = 8). Completion rates (HIIT, n = 4; MICT, n = 5) and median attendances were similar (HIIT = 81%, MICT = 86%). Most participants were satisfied with their allocation (88% MICT; 100% HIIT), and found the exercise enjoyable (63% MICT; 100% HIIT). Equal numbers reported that they would like to continue the exercise (63%), and that they would feel confident doing so without supervision (75%). No significant differences were found between groups on mental health and fitness. Conclusion This preliminary evidence suggests that HIIT was as acceptable and feasible as MICT for adults with mental illness.

AB - Introduction Adults with mental illness have increased risk of cardiovascular disease. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is more efficacious than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF); however, the utility of HIIT for this group is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and acceptability of HIIT and MICT in adults with mental illness. A secondary aim was to compare the efficacy of HIIT and MICT on mental health and fitness. Method Inactive adults with self-reported mental illness participated in aerobic exercise three times/week over 12 weeks. Participants were randomised to HIIT (3x4-min bouts at 85–95% peak heart rate [HRpeak] interspersed with 3-min recovery bouts) or MICT (1 × 30-min at 65–75% HRpeak). Feasibility was assessed using attendance and withdrawal rates. Acceptability and mental health was assessed using self-administered questionnaires. Fitness was measured using indirect calorimetry during a graded fitness test to exhaustion. Results 24 participants consented and 16 participants began the intervention (HIIT, n = 8; MICT, n = 8). Completion rates (HIIT, n = 4; MICT, n = 5) and median attendances were similar (HIIT = 81%, MICT = 86%). Most participants were satisfied with their allocation (88% MICT; 100% HIIT), and found the exercise enjoyable (63% MICT; 100% HIIT). Equal numbers reported that they would like to continue the exercise (63%), and that they would feel confident doing so without supervision (75%). No significant differences were found between groups on mental health and fitness. Conclusion This preliminary evidence suggests that HIIT was as acceptable and feasible as MICT for adults with mental illness.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032857911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.mhpa.2017.09.007

DO - 10.1016/j.mhpa.2017.09.007

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85032857911

SN - 1755-2966

VL - 13

SP - 40

EP - 48

JO - Mental Health and Physical Activity

JF - Mental Health and Physical Activity

ER -

The feasibility and acceptability of high-intensity interval training for adults with mental illness: A pilot study

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this