High intensity training resulted in significantly lower attendance (55.5% vs 64.0%) and lower achievement of target heart rates (37% vs 54%) compared to low intensity training during the first year.
RCT (n=197)
Does high intensity training compared to low intensity training affect adherence and target heart rate achievement in male coronary heart disease patients?
While low-intensity cardiac rehabilitation yields higher session attendance, high-intensity training results in higher achieved heart rates among attenders, suggesting a trade-off between adherence and physiological intensity.
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 55.5% vs 64%
In the Training Levels Comparison Trial, 197 male coronary heart disease patients were randomized to low or high intensity training with target heart rates, which corresponded to 50% and 85% of the VO2max achieved on the previous exercise test, respectively. Patients were to exercise at their assigned intensity level at three 1-h long supervised sessions per week for 2 yr. This paper reports on two components of adherence: attendance at exercise sessions and achievement of heart rates in the target range. During the first year of training, the average percent of exercise sessions attended (mean +/- SE) for the low intensity group (64.0 +/- 2.5%) was significantly higher than for the high intensity group (55.5% +/- 2.7%). At the end of 1 yr of training, 54% and 37% of the low and high intensity patients, respectively, achieved heart rates within 5 beats.min-1 of their target heart rates. Although the low intensity program was preferable to achieve maximum attendance, attenders on the high intensity program achieved higher heart rates. These results suggest that to maximize the achieved heart rate, it would be optimal to motivate a cardiac rehabilitation patient to train at the high intensity level for a prolonged period of time.
Lee et al. (Mon,) conducted a rct in coronary heart disease (n=197). High intensity training vs. Low intensity training was evaluated on Average percent of exercise sessions attended during the first year. High intensity training resulted in significantly lower attendance (55.5% vs 64.0%) and lower achievement of target heart rates (37% vs 54%) compared to low intensity training during the first year.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: