This study aimed to investigate cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory adaptations to exercise intervention among participants who showed higher (responders– Rs BFP ) and lower (non-responders– NRs BFP ) levels of body fat percentage (BFP) responsiveness. Adolescents (42.5% males) participated in a ten-week school-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT), followed by a comparison of BFP, blood pressure (BP), and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Rs BFP age of 16.15 ± 0.36 years, body height 170.82 ± 8.16 cm, weight 61.23 ± 12.80 kg, and BMI 20.86 ± 3.29 kg/m 2 . Meanwhile, NRs BFP age of 16.04 ± 0.36 years, body height 168.17 ± 8.64 cm, weight 57.94 ± 8.62 kg, and BMI 20.47 ± 2.24 kg/m 2 . HIIT intervention impacted BFP, with a higher decrease in the Rs BFP than the NRs BFP (ΔBFP Rs = − 2.30 ± 3.51(10.34%) vs. ΔBFP NRs = 1.51 ± 1.54(6.96%) p < 0.001). The primary comparison showed a statistically significant interaction effect in relation to CRF (F (1,71) = 14.12; p < 0.001). Detailed comparisons showed large and significant CRF changes in Rs BFP (7.52%; d = 0.86; p < 0.001) but not in NRs BFP (2.01%; d = 0.11; p = 0.576). In addition, Rs BFP and NRs BFP benefited equally in SBP (5.49%, d = 0.75; p < 0.001; 4.95%, d = 0.74; p < 0.001, respectively). These findings highlight that exercise benefits on body fat may be mainly related to gains in CRF. Due to substantial intra-individual variability in adaptation, there is a need for personalized intervention tailored for those with different reaction thresholds in body mass components.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Domaradzki et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: