Abstract：
In articles on the methodology of studies investigating affective and enjoyment responses to high-intensity interval training, we noted that, occasionally, exercise conditions described as involving \"high\" intensity exhibited heart rates that were only as high as, or even lower than, heart rates recorded during comparator conditions described as being of \"moderate\" intensity. Drs. Vollaard, Metcalfe, Kinghorn, Jung, and Little suggest instead that exercise intensity in high-intensity interval-training studies can be defined in terms of percentages of peak workload. Although we maintain that defining exercise intensity in terms of percentages of maximal heart rate is a suboptimal way to quantify the degree of homeostatic perturbations in response to exercise, we are unconvinced that definitions of intensity relying solely on workload are appropriate for studies investigating affective and enjoyment responses to exercise. The reason is that affect is theorized to have evolved to relay information about homeostatic perturbations to consciousness.
摘要：
在有关研究高强度间歇训练的情感和享乐反应的研究方法的文章中，我们注意到，偶尔,被描述为涉及“高强度”的运动条件表现出的心率仅为，甚至低于，在比较条件下记录的心率被描述为“中等”强度。Drs.Vollaard,梅特卡夫,Kinghorn,荣格,几乎没有建议，高强度间歇训练研究中的运动强度可以根据峰值工作量的百分比来定义。尽管我们坚持认为，以最大心率的百分比来定义运动强度是量化运动时稳态扰动程度的次优方法，我们不相信仅依赖工作量的强度定义适合于调查对运动的情感和享受反应的研究。原因是，从理论上讲，影响已经演变为将有关稳态扰动的信息传递给意识。
