31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Multi-Center Comparison of O 2peak Trainability Between Interval Training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 1 , 6 , 1 , 1 , 7 , 1 , 8 , 8 , 9 , 9 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 11 , 12 , 12 , 13 , 1 , 6 , 14 , 6 , 1 , 6 , 3 , 3 , 15 , 3 , 16 , 3 , 1 , *
      Frontiers in Physiology
      Frontiers Media S.A.
      cardiorespiratory fitness, VO2max, VO2peak, exercise training, response heterogeneity, trainability

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is heterogeneity in the observed O 2peak response to similar exercise training, and different exercise approaches produce variable degrees of exercise response (trainability). The aim of this study was to combine data from different laboratories to compare O 2peak trainability between various volumes of interval training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training (MICT). For interval training, volumes were classified by the duration of total interval time. High-volume High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) included studies that had participants complete more than 15 min of high intensity efforts per session. Low-volume HIIT/Sprint Interval Training (SIT) included studies using less than 15 min of high intensity efforts per session. In total, 677 participants across 18 aerobic exercise training interventions from eight different universities in five countries were included in the analysis. Participants had completed 3 weeks or more of either high-volume HIIT ( n = 299), low-volume HIIT/SIT ( n = 116), or MICT ( n = 262) and were predominately men ( n = 495) with a mix of healthy, elderly and clinical populations. Each training intervention improved mean O 2peak at the group level ( P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, high-volume HIIT had a significantly greater ( P < 0.05) absolute O 2peak increase (0.29 L/min) compared to MICT (0.20 L/min) and low-volume HIIT/SIT (0.18 L/min). Adjusted relative O 2peak increase was also significantly greater ( P < 0.01) in high-volume HIIT (3.3 ml/kg/min) than MICT (2.4 ml/kg/min) and insignificantly greater ( P = 0.09) than low-volume HIIT/SIT (2.5 mL/kg/min). Based on a high threshold for a likely response (technical error of measurement plus the minimal clinically important difference), high-volume HIIT had significantly more ( P < 0.01) likely responders (31%) compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT (16%) and MICT (21%). Covariates such as age, sex, the individual study, population group, sessions per week, study duration and the average between pre and post O 2peak explained only 17.3% of the variance in O 2peak trainability. In conclusion, high-volume HIIT had more likely responders to improvements in O 2peak compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT and MICT.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          High-intensity interval training in patients with lifestyle-induced cardiometabolic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a strong determinant of morbidity and mortality. In athletes and the general population, it is established that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is superior to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in improving CRF. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy and safety of HIIT compared to MICT in individuals with chronic cardiometabolic lifestyle diseases. The included studies were required to have a population sample of chronic disease, where poor lifestyle is considered as a main contributor to the disease. The procedural quality of the studies was assessed by use of a modified Physiotherapy Evidence Base Database (PEDro) scale. A meta-analysis compared the mean difference (MD) of preintervention versus postintervention CRF (VO2peak) between HIIT and MICT. 10 studies with 273 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Participants had coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, metabolic syndrome and obesity. There was a significantly higher increase in the VO2peak after HIIT compared to MICT (MD 3.03 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.07), equivalent to 9.1%. HIIT significantly increases CRF by almost double that of MICT in patients with lifestyle-induced chronic diseases. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of high-intensity interval training on cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies.

            The current review clarifies the cardiometabolic health effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in adults. A systematic search (PubMed) examining HIIT and cardiometabolic health markers was completed on 15 October 2015. Sixty-five intervention studies were included for review and the methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Downs and Black score. Studies were classified by intervention duration and body mass index classification. Outcomes with at least 5 effect sizes were synthesised using a random-effects meta-analysis of the standardised mean difference (SMD) in cardiometabolic health markers (baseline to postintervention) using Review Manager 5.3. Short-term (ST) HIIT (<12 weeks) significantly improved maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max; SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.12; p<0.001), diastolic blood pressure (DBP; SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.16; p<0.01) and fasting glucose (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.09; p<0.01) in overweight/obese populations. Long-term (LT) HIIT (≥12 weeks) significantly improved waist circumference (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.01; p<0.05), % body fat (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.06; p<0.05), VO2 max (SMD 1.20, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.83; p<0.001), resting heart rate (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09; p<0.01), systolic blood pressure (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.09; p<0.01) and DBP (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.10; p<0.01) in overweight/obese populations. HIIT demonstrated no effect on insulin, lipid profile, C reactive protein or interleukin 6 in overweight/obese populations. In normal weight populations, ST-HIIT and LT-HIIT significantly improved VO2 max, but no other significant effects were observed. Current evidence suggests that ST-HIIT and LT-HIIT can increase VO2 max and improve some cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight/obese populations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              High-intensity interval running is perceived to be more enjoyable than moderate-intensity continuous exercise: implications for exercise adherence.

              The aim of this study was to objectively quantify ratings of perceived enjoyment using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale following high-intensity interval running versus moderate-intensity continuous running. Eight recreationally active men performed two running protocols consisting of high-intensity interval running (6 × 3 min at 90% VO(2max) interspersed with 6 × 3 min active recovery at 50% VO(2max) with a 7-min warm-up and cool down at 70% VO(2max)) or 50 min moderate-intensity continuous running at 70% VO(2max). Ratings of perceived enjoyment after exercise were higher (P < 0.05) following interval running compared with continuous running (88 ± 6 vs. 61 ± 12) despite higher (P < 0.05) ratings of perceived exertion (14 ± 1 vs. 13 ± 1). There was no difference (P < 0.05) in average heart rate (88 ± 3 vs. 87 ± 3% maximum heart rate), average VO(2) (71 ± 6 vs. 73 ± 4%VO(2max)), total VO(2) (162 ± 16 vs. 166 ± 27 L) or energy expenditure (811 ± 83 vs. 832 ± 136 kcal) between protocols. The greater enjoyment associated with high-intensity interval running may be relevant for improving exercise adherence, since running is a low-cost exercise intervention requiring no exercise equipment and similar relative exercise intensities have previously induced health benefits in patient populations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Physiol
                Front Physiol
                Front. Physiol.
                Frontiers in Physiology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-042X
                05 February 2019
                2019
                : 10
                : 19
                Affiliations
                [1] 1School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, QLD, Australia
                [2] 2School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen’s University , Kingston, ON, Canada
                [3] 3Institute for Health and Sport (iHeS), Victoria University , Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [4] 4Translational Genomics Group, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology at Translational Research Institute, Princess Alexandra Hospital , Brisbane, QLD, Australia
                [5] 5Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University , Robina, QLD, Australia
                [6] 6K.G. Jebsen Center of Exercise in Medicine, Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Trondheim, Norway
                [7] 7SHAPE Research Centre, Exercise Science and Clinical Exercise Physiology, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University , Adelaide, SA, Australia
                [8] 8School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia , Kelowna, BC, Canada
                [9] 9Internal Medicine, Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Dallas, TX, United States
                [10] 10Department of Physiology, Radboud University Medical Center , Nijmegen, Netherlands
                [11] 11Cardiology Department, Antwerp University Hospital , Antwerp, Belgium
                [12] 12Department of Rehabilitation Sciences – Research Group for Rehabilitation in Internal Disorders, Catholic University of Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [13] 13Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute , Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [14] 14St. Olavs Hospital , Trondheim, Norway
                [15] 15Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS) , Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [16] 16School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University , Joondalup, WA, Australia
                Author notes

                Edited by: Mikel Izquierdo, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Spain

                Reviewed by: Thierry Busso, Université Jean Monnet, France; Laurent Bosquet, University of Poitiers, France

                *Correspondence: Jeff S. Coombes, j.coombes@ 123456uq.edu.au

                This article was submitted to Exercise Physiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Physiology

                Article
                10.3389/fphys.2019.00019
                6370746
                30804794
                1a84b1c5-bdf4-424d-b07a-c48c32af5801
                Copyright © 2019 Williams, Gurd, Bonafiglia, Voisin, Li, Harvey, Croci, Taylor, Gajanand, Ramos, Fassett, Little, Francois, Hearon, Sarma, Janssen, Van Craenenbroeck, Beckers, Cornelissen, Pattyn, Howden, Keating, Bye, Stensvold, Wisloff, Papadimitriou, Yan, Bishop, Eynon and Coombes.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 20 October 2018
                : 10 January 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 70, Pages: 13, Words: 0
                Categories
                Physiology
                Original Research

                Anatomy & Physiology
                cardiorespiratory fitness,vo2max,vo2peak,exercise training,response heterogeneity,trainability

                Comments

                Comment on this article