Key result
High intensity training resulted in significantly lower attendance (55.5% vs 64.0%) and lower achievement of target heart rates (37% vs 54%) compared to low intensity training during the first year.
Why the study?
Does high intensity training compared to low intensity training affect adherence and target heart rate achievement in male coronary heart disease patients?
Population
197 male coronary heart disease patients
Comparison
High intensity training, three 1-hour long… vs Low intensity training, three 1-hour long…
Design
RCT, randomized
Follow-up
1 year (of a 2-year planned intervention)
Authors
Loading...
High-intensity training risks lower adherence in practice; extends RCT evidence on intensity feasibility trade-offs.
RCT (n=197)
Does high intensity training compared to low intensity training affect adherence and target heart rate achievement in male coronary heart disease patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 55.5% vs 64%
While low-intensity cardiac rehabilitation yields higher session attendance, high-intensity training results in higher achieved heart rates among attenders, suggesting a trade-off between adherence and physiological intensity.
Lee et al. (1996) conducted an RCT in coronary heart disease (n=197). High intensity training vs. Low intensity training was evaluated on Average percent of exercise sessions attended during the first year. High intensity training resulted in significantly lower attendance (55.5% vs 64.0%) and lower achievement of target heart rates (37% vs 54%) compared to low intensity training during the first year.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: