Key result
Lactate threshold-based low-volume HIIT matches HRmax-based HIIT for improving maximal oxygen uptake in MetS.
Why the study?
Low-volume HIIT prescriptions typically rely on maximum heart rate, which requires maximal effort exercise testing that may not be feasible or safe in patients with metabolic syndrome.
Does lactate threshold-based low-volume high-intensity interval training improve cardiometabolic health and quality of life in patients with metabolic syndrome compared to maximum heart rate-based training or control?
RCT (n=75)
Does lactate threshold-based low-volume high-intensity interval training improve cardiometabolic health and quality of life in patients with metabolic syndrome compared to maximum heart rate-based training or control?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.7% vs 3.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
Lactate threshold-based low-volume HIIT provides similar cardiometabolic and quality of life benefits as maximum heart rate-based HIIT in patients with metabolic syndrome, offering a viable alternative without requiring maximal exercise testing.
LT-based HIIT matches HRmax-based benefits in MetS; extends low-volume options without requiring maximal testing.
Exercise is an integral part of metabolic syndrome (MetS) treatment. Recently, low-volume high-intensity interval training (LOW-HIIT) has emerged as a time-efficient approach to improving cardiometabolic health. Intensity prescriptions for LOW-HIIT are typically based on maximum heart rate (HRmax) percentages. However, HRmax determination requires maximal effort during exercise testing, which may not always be feasible/safe for MetS patients. This trial compared the effects of a 12-week LOW-HIIT program based on: (a) HRmax (HIIT-HR), or (b) submaximal lactate threshold (HIIT-LT), on cardiometabolic health and quality of life (QoL) in MetS patients. Seventy-five patients were randomized to HIIT-HR (5 × 1 min at 80–95% HRmax), HIIT-LT (5 × 1 min at 95–105% LT) groups, both performed twice weekly on cycle ergometers, or a control group (CON). All patients received nutritional weight loss consultation. All groups reduced their body weight (HIIT-HR: −3.9 kg, p < 0.001; HTT-LT: −5.6 kg, p < 0.001; CON: −2.6 kg, p = 0.003). The HIIT-HR and HIIT-LT groups similarly, improved their maximal oxygen uptake (+3.6 and +3.7 mL/kg/min, p < 0.001), glycohemoglobin (−0.2%, p = 0.005, and −0.3%, p < 0.001), homeostasis model assessment index (−1.3 units, p = 0.005, and −1.0 units, p = 0.014), MetS z-score (−1.9 and −2.5 units, p < 0.001) and QoL (+10 points, p = 0.029, and +11 points, p = 0.002), while the CON did not experience changes in these variables. We conclude that HIIT-LT is a viable alternative to HIIT-HR for patients who are not able/willing to undergo maximal exercise testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reljic et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Metabolic syndrome (MetS) (n=75). Low-volume high-intensity interval training based on lactate threshold (HIIT-LT) vs. HIIT based on maximum heart rate (HIIT-HR) and a control group was evaluated on Maximal oxygen uptake change from baseline (mL/kg/min) (p=<0.001). Lactate threshold-based low-volume HIIT similarly improved maximal oxygen uptake (+3.7 vs +3.6 mL/kg/min) and MetS z-score (-2.5 vs -1.9 units) compared to HRmax-based HIIT in MetS patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: