Key result
A single bout of interval exercise did not significantly differ from continuous exercise in immediate systolic blood pressure response (MD 8 mmHg; 95% CI -32 to 47; p=0.71).
Why the study?
Interval exercise training is increasingly recommended, but whether its acute cardiovascular risk differs from continuous exercise protocols is unknown.
Does a single bout of interval exercise alter cardiovascular responses indicating risk of cardiac fibrillation and infarction compared to continuous exercise?
Meta-Analysis
Does a single bout of interval exercise alter cardiovascular responses indicating risk of cardiac fibrillation and infarction compared to continuous exercise?
Mean Difference: 8 (95% CI -32–47)
p-value: p=0.71
A single bout of interval exercise does not appear to convey higher acute cardiovascular risk than continuous exercise based on surrogate markers like blood pressure.
Interval and continuous exercise elicit similar immediate systolic BP responses; confirms their equivalence for acute hemodynamic comparisons.
Interval exercise training is increasingly recommended to improve health and fitness; however, it is not known if cardiovascular risk is different from continuous exercise protocols. This systematic review with meta-analyses assessed the effect of a single bout of interval exercise on cardiovascular responses that indicate risk of cardiac fibrillation and infarction compared to continuous exercise. Electronic databases Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane were searched. Key inclusion criteria were: (1) intervals of the same intensity and duration followed by a recovery period and (2) reporting at least one of blood pressure, heart rate variability, arterial stiffness or function. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE approach were used. Meta-analyses found that systolic blood pressure responses to interval exercise did not differ from responses to continuous exercise immediately (MD 8 mmHg [95% CI −32, 47], p = 0.71) or at 60 min following exercise (MD 0 mmHg [95% CI −2, 1], p = 0.79). However, reductions in diastolic blood pressure and flow-mediated dilation with interval exercise were observed 10–15 min post-exercise. The available evidence indicates that interval exercise does not convey higher cardiovascular risk than continuous exercise. Further investigation is required to establish the safety of interval exercise for clinical populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Price et al. (2020) reported a meta-analysis. Interval exercise vs. Continuous exercise was evaluated on Systolic blood pressure responses immediately following exercise (MD 8, 95% CI -32, 47, p=0.71). A single bout of interval exercise did not significantly differ from continuous exercise in immediate systolic blood pressure response (MD 8 mmHg; 95% CI -32 to 47; p=0.71).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: