You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Ratings of Perceived Exertion and Self-reported Mood State in Response to High Intensity Interval Training. A Crossover Study on the Effect of Chronotype
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01232 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jacopo A. Vitale, Antonio La Torre, Roberto Baldassarre, Maria F. Piacentini, Matteo Bonato |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of chronotype on mood state and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) before and in response to acute high intensity interval exercise (HIIE) performed at different times of the day. Based on the morningness-eveningness questionnaire, 12 morning-types (M-types; N = 12; age 21 ± 2 years; height 179 ± 5 cm; body mass 74 ± 12 kg) and 11 evening-types (E-types; N = 11; age 21 ± 2 years; height 181 ± 11 cm; body mass 76 ± 11 kg) were enrolled in a randomized crossover study. All subjects underwent measurements of Profile of Mood States (POMS), before (PRE), after 12 (POST12) and 24 h (POST24) the completion of both morning (08.00 am) and evening (08.00 p.m.) training. Additionally, Global Mood Disturbance and Energy Index (EI) were calculated. RPE was obtained PRE and 30 min POST HIIE. Two-way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test of POMS parameters during morning training showed significant differences in fatigue, vigor and EI at PRE and POST24 between M-types and E-types. In addition, significant chronotype differences were found only in POST12 after the evening HIIE for fatigue, vigor and EI. For what concerns Borg perceived exertion, comparing morning versus evening values in PRE condition, a higher RPE was observed in relation to evening training for M-types (P = 0.0107) while E-types showed higher RPE values in the morning (P = 0.008). Finally, intragroup differences showed that E-types had a higher RPE respect to M-types before (P = 0.002) and after 30 min (P = 0.042) the morning session of HIIE. No significant changes during the evening training session were found. In conclusion, chronotype seems to significantly influence fatigue values, perceived exertions and vigor in relation to HIIE performed at different times of the day. Specifically, E-types will meet more of a burden when undertaking a physical task early in the day. Practical results suggest that performing a HIIE at those times of day that do not correspond to subjects' circadian preference can lead to increased mood disturbances and perceived exertion. Therefore, an athlete's chronotype should be taken into account when scheduling HIIE. Trial registration: ACTRN12617000432314, registered 24 March 2017, "retrospectively registered". Web address of trial: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371862&showOriginal=true&isReview=true. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 35 | 34% |
| Psychology | 12 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,561,111
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,470
of 30,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,718
of 314,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#325
of 560 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 560 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.