Key result
HIIT lowers systolic blood pressure ~7 mm Hg vs standard physical education.
Why the study?
While high-intensity interval training effects and responder patterns on resting blood pressure and cardiorespiratory fitness have been examined, the minimal detectable change in these measures had not been addressed.
Does a once-weekly school-based high-intensity interval training program improve resting blood pressure and cardiorespiratory fitness in adolescents beyond minimal detectable change thresholds?
RCT (n=141)
Cluster randomization by class
No
Does a once-weekly school-based high-intensity interval training program improve resting blood pressure and cardiorespiratory fitness in adolescents beyond minimal detectable change thresholds?
While school-based HIIT improves systolic blood pressure and fitness in adolescents, significant inter-individual variability exists and average improvements may not exceed the minimal detectable change of the metrics used.
Average SBP reductions with school-based HIIT fall below MDC thresholds in adolescents; cautions against overinterpreting statistical significance and leaves open optimization of intervention intensity or frequency.
High-intensity interval training (HIIT) effects on resting blood pressure (BP) and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) have already been studied. Furthermore, the responses of responders and non-responders to HIIT in terms of these physiological outcomes have also been examined. However, the minimal detectable change (MDC) in BP and CRF has not been addressed yet. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the MDC90 of BP (systolic and diastolic) and CRF (fitness index (FI) results) in the context of a school-based HIIT program for adolescents. Participants were adolescents, with an average age of 16.16 years (n = 141; 36.6% males). A preplanned secondary analysis was conducted using pre–post data from the control group to estimate MDC90. The MDC90 of SBP, DBP, and FI were 7.82 mm HG, 12.45 mm HG, and 5.39 points, respectively. However, taking into account the relative values of these changes, MDC90 required a greater change in DBP (17.27%) than FI (12.15%) and SBP (6.68%). Any training-induced physiological changes in the average values of the outcomes did not exceed MDC90. However, a comparison of the participants who exceeded and did not exceed MDC90 showed statistically significant differences. These findings reveal the huge variability in and insensitivity to the intervention effect for all measurements. This is likely because of the large subgroup of participants with low sensitivity to the physiological stimulus. As such, there is a considerable need to create individually tailored intervention programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jarosław Domaradzki (2023) conducted an RCT in Healthy adolescents (n=141). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. Standard physical education program was evaluated on Change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (Cohen's d -1.02, p=<0.001). High-intensity interval training significantly reduced systolic blood pressure compared to a standard physical education program (Δ -6.31 vs 0.75 mm Hg), though average changes did not exceed the minimal detectable change of 7.82 mm Hg.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: