Two weeks of school-based sprint interval training significantly improved working memory accuracy by 2.0% and increased resting BDNF concentrations in adolescent girls compared to control.
RCT (n=16)
Open-label
Randomized
No
Does 2-weeks of school-based sprint training improve physical fitness, cardiometabolic risk factors, and cognitive function in adolescent girls?
A 2-week school-based sprint interval training program improved working memory and increased BDNF concentrations in adolescent girls, though it did not alter cardiometabolic risk factors.
Mean Difference: 2 (95% CI 0.02–3.9)
Absolute Event Rate: 99.6% vs 97.6%
p-value: p=0.046
Background School-based physical activity interventions are accessible to most adolescents and could enhance adolescent cardiometabolic health and cognition; yet the feasibility and success of school-based physical activity interventions is understudied. Methods Sixteen adolescent girls (age: 11.7 ± 0.3 y; height: 1.58 ± 0.07 m; body mass: 45.5 ± 9.2 kg) were randomized to either an intervention (2-weeks sprint training; n = 8) or control group (continuation of regular physical activity levels; n = 8). Following familiarization, all participants completed baseline measurements including fasted and postprandial capillary blood samples, a battery of cognitive function tests (Stroop Test, Sternberg Paradigm and Flanker Task), and an assessment of physical fitness (20 m sprint and multi-stage fitness test). The intervention group completed 2-weeks progressive sprint training (3 sessions per week: week one 6 × 10 s sprints, week two 8 × 10 s sprints). Follow-up measurements were completed 48 h after the final sprint training session. Data were analyzed via ANCOVA to examine between group differences at follow-up whilst controlling for baseline score. Results Accuracy in the intervention group during the three-item Sternberg paradigm was greater when compared with the control group (Intervention: 99.6 ± 1.1%; Control: 97.7 ± 2.2%, p = 0.046). BDNF concentration was also higher in the intervention group at follow-up than control group (Intervention: 39.12 ± 9.88 ng.ml −1 ; Control: 22.95 ± 9.13 ng.ml −1 , p 0.001). There were no differences at follow-up between the intervention and control group for measures of cardiometabolic health (fasted cytokine concentrations or postprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses) or on the Stroop Test or Flanker Task (all p 0.05). However, the intervention group reported enjoying the sprint training and that they found the sessions valuable. Conclusion Two-weeks sprint interval training in a school-setting enhanced working memory and increased concentrations of BDNF in adolescent girls. The intervention was deemed enjoyable and worthwhile by the adolescent girls and thus the longer-term implementation of such an intervention should be examined.
Williams et al. (Fri,) conducted a rct in Healthy adolescent girls (n=16). Sprint interval training vs. Continuation of regular physical activity was evaluated on Accuracy during the three-item Sternberg paradigm (working memory) (MD 2.0, 95% CI 0.02-3.9, p=0.046). Two weeks of school-based sprint interval training significantly improved working memory accuracy by 2.0% and increased resting BDNF concentrations in adolescent girls compared to control.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: