Why the study?
The study was conducted to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of high-intensity interval training in children and adolescents.
Does high-intensity interval training improve physical morphology, cardiorespiratory fitness, and metabolic risk factors of cardiovascular disease in children and adolescents?
Does high-intensity interval training improve physical morphology, cardiorespiratory fitness, and metabolic risk factors of cardiovascular disease in children and adolescents?
High-intensity interval training improves cardiorespiratory fitness and some metabolic risk markers in children and adolescents, though it does not significantly affect body shape.
Supports HIIT for cardiorespiratory gains in youth; extends adult evidence with selective biomarker benefits.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of high-intensity interval training in children and adolescents. METHODS: Eight databases were searched. Descriptive analysis of the efficacy and safety of high-intensity interval training on body shape, cardiorespiratory fitness, and metabolic risk markers of cardiovascular disease in children and adolescents. Subgroup analysis was performed using age, participants, intervention time, and exercise frequency as covariates. RESULTS: 47 studies included 2995 children and adolescents. The results of the meta-analysis showed that high-intensity interval training significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness indicators (VO2max, SBP, DBP and HRmax) and cardiovascular disease biomarkers (TC and HDL-C). HIIT had no significant effect on body shape indicators (BMI, BF% and WC) or cardiovascular disease biomarkers (TG and LDL-C). CONCLUSION: Currently, there is insufficient evidence that HIIT with interval running as the predominant form improves physical indicators in children and adolescents. However, HIIT can be promoted in children and adolescents to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and reduce some metabolic risk of cardiovascular disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Men et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: