Abstract：
Kinesiology aspires to be an integrated, interdisciplinary field that studies human movement from multiple perspectives. However, the main societal deliverables of the field, namely exercise prescriptions and physical activity recommendations, still reflect fragmentation, placing more emphasis on physiological outcomes than on behavioral and other considerations. Recently, researchers have called for the introduction of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) to the domain of public health, based on the argument that HIIT can maximize fitness and health benefits for a fraction of the time recommended by the prevailing model of physical activity in public-health guidelines. Here, we show that an unintended side-effect of arguments underpinning the implementation of HIIT in the domain of public health might have been the exacerbation of segmentation. To highlight the value of interdisciplinarity, four foundational claims in support of HIIT are critiqued by tapping into cognate literatures: (1) the primary reason people do not exercise is lack of time, (2) HIIT is relevant to public health, (3) HIIT is being proposed as merely another option, so there is no basis for controversy, and (4) HIIT is safe and well tolerated. These claims are contradicted by credible lines of evidence. To improve the accuracy and effectiveness of its public claims, kinesiology should remain committed to the ideals of integration and interdisciplinarity.
摘要：
运动学渴望成为一个完整的，从多个角度研究人类运动的跨学科领域。然而,该领域的主要社会成果，即运动处方和身体活动建议，仍然反映了碎片化，更强调生理结果，而不是行为和其他考虑。最近,研究人员呼吁将高强度间歇训练（HIIT）引入公共卫生领域，基于HIIT可以在公共卫生指南中现行体育活动模型建议的一小部分时间内最大化健身和健康益处的论点。这里,我们表明,支持在公共卫生领域实施HIIT的论点的意外副作用可能是细分的加剧.为了突出跨学科的价值，通过利用同源文献批评了支持HIIT的四个基本主张：(1)人们不锻炼的主要原因是缺乏时间，(2)HIIT与公共卫生相关，(3)HIIT被提议只是另一种选择，所以没有争议的基础，和（4）HIIT是安全和耐受性良好。这些说法与可靠的证据相矛盾。为了提高其公开索赔的准确性和有效性，运动学应继续致力于整合和跨学科的理想。
