Why the study?
The feasibility and effectiveness of a high-intensity semisupervised exercise program combined with lifestyle counseling for managing cardiometabolic risk in sedentary adults needed evaluation.
Does aerobic interval training or continuous training combined with lifestyle counseling improve cardiometabolic risk factors and physical activity compared to lifestyle counseling alone in sedentary adults?
Does aerobic interval training or continuous training combined with lifestyle counseling improve cardiometabolic risk factors and physical activity compared to lifestyle counseling alone in sedentary adults?
Aerobic interval training and continuous training combined with lifestyle counseling improve physical activity and sedentary behavior more than counseling alone, though all approaches similarly improve metabolic syndrome severity.
Similar cardiometabolic benefits from counseling alone; extends evidence that added training boosts activity adherence.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a high-intensity semisupervised exercise program alongside lifestyle counseling as an intervention for managing cardiometabolic risk in sedentary adults. METHODS: A 40-week 3-arm randomized controlled clinical trial (16-wk intervention and 24-wk follow-up) was used. Seventy-five sedentary adults (34-55 y) with at least 1 cardiometabolic risk factor were randomized into one of the following arms: (1) aerobic interval training (AIT) plus lifestyle counseling (n = 25), (2) low- to moderate-intensity continuous training plus lifestyle counseling (traditional continuous training, TCT) (n = 27), or (3) lifestyle counseling alone (COU) (n = 23). Metabolic syndrome severity scores, accelerometer-based physical activity, and self-reported dietary habits were assessed at baseline, after the intervention, and at follow-up. RESULTS: AIT was well accepted with high enjoyment scores. All groups showed similar improvements in metabolic syndrome severity scores (standardized effect size = 0.46) and dietary habits (standardized effect size = 0.30). Moderate to vigorous physical activity increased in all study groups, with the number of responders higher in AIT and TCT groups (50%) than in COU group (21%). Both AIT and TCT had a greater impact on sedentary behavior than COU (63.5% vs 30.4% responders). CONCLUSIONS: AIT appears to be a feasible and effective strategy in sedentary individuals with cardiometabolic risk factors. AIT could be included in intervention programs tackling unhealthy lifestyles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ensenyat et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: