Observational analysis reveals no significant sex differences in heart rate but higher positive responses in females.
Background: Tabata-based High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT) elicits hybrid adaptations in both cardiorespiratory and neuromuscular systems. However, its high Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) may limit its feasibility. Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the acute physiological and psychological responses to a modified low-volume Tabata-based HIFT incorporating short efforts, with a focus on potential differences between sexes. Research Design: A single low-volume modified Tabata HIFT session was performed, comprising eight rounds of four exercises (Burpees, Mountain Climbers, Jumping Jacks, and Thrusters using two 2 kg dumbbells), involving 32 efforts of 5 seconds, interspersed with 10 seconds of passive recovery (∼8 minutes). Study Sample: Sixteen healthy moderately to highly physically active young adults (9 males and 7 females [age: 28.2 ± 4.9 years; Body Mass Index [BMI]: 24.0 ± 2.6 kg·m-2]) participated in the study. Data Collection: Physiological (Heart Rate [HR], HR Variability, and HR Recovery) and psychological (Category Ratio 10 RPE Scale [CR-10 RPE], Feeling Scale [FS], Exercise Task Self-Efficacy, Intention, and Enjoyment) variables were assessed. Results: Participants spent most of the session time (∼6 minutes / 75% of exercise volume) within 90-100% of maximal HR (HRmax), presenting no significant sex-based differences in HR-related values (p > 0.05), nor in the total repetitions performed across exercises and rounds (p > 0.05). Both sexes exhibited positive Affective Valence; however, females reported higher FS scores (p < 0.05), as well as greater Intention scores for engaging in HIFT 3 and 5 times·wk-1 compared to males (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The findings suggest that the modified low-volume Tabata HIFT protocol induces high cardiorespiratory strain, is well tolerated, and that females report greater Affective Valence response and Intention to participate than males.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferraro-Farro et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: