Enjoyment Responses to High Intensity Interval and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training in Crohn’s Disease Patients: 450 Board #288 May 29 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to undertake secondary data analysis from a three-arm feasibility trial of high intensity interval training (HIIT), moderate intensity continuous training (MICT), and usual care, in Crohn’s disease (CD) patients (n=36), with a primary focus on exploring affective and enjoyment responses to the two types of exercise training. METHODS: Twenty-five participants with quiescent or mildly-active CD were randomised to one of the two active groups: HIIT (n=13) and MICT (n=12). Both groups were offered three exercise sessions per week for 12 weeks. MICT consisted of cycling for 30 minutes at 35% peak power (Wpeak), whereas HIIT involved ten 1-minute bouts at 90% Wpeak, interspersed with 1-minute bouts at 15% Wpeak. Peak power was determined prior to the intervention and reassessed at weeks 4 and 8 to adjust training load. Heart rate (HR) and differentiated ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) for legs (RPE-L) and central (i.e. ventilatory and circulatory; RPE-C), along with feeling state (Feeling Scale; FS) were measured at regular time intervals during each exercise session. In addition, enjoyment was measured at the end of the training programmes using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). Post-hoc exploratory analysis involved a mixed-model two-way ANOVA to compare HR, RPE-C, RPE-L and FS at weeks 1, 6 and 12 between groups. An independent t-test was used to assess between-group differences in PACES scores. RESULTS: HR was greater (p < 0.01) during HIIT (168 ± 20 bpm) compared with MICT (124 ± 18 bpm). Similarly, RPE-L and RPE-C responses were greater (p = 0.03 and p = 0.03, respectively) during HIIT (5.5 ± 1.6 and 5.1 ± 1.7 i.e. ‘hard’, respectively) compared to MICT (3.3 ± 1.5 and 2.9 ± 1.5 i.e. ‘moderate’, respectively). Overall, FS recorded was 2.2 ± 1.8 (i.e. ‘fairly good’) for HIIT and 2.1 ± 1.3 (i.e. ‘fairly good’) for MICT with no effect of condition (P=0.25) or time (P=0.94). There was also no statistically significant difference in PACES scores between HIIT (99.4 ± 12.9) and MICT (101.3 ± 17.4; p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: Despite the differences in HR and RPE responses, the findings suggest that the HIIT and MICT protocols elicited similar enjoyment and affective responses in adults with quiescent or mildly-active CD. Support by CCUK Grant SP2015/1.