Key result
A two-week high-intensity interval eccentric training program significantly reduced total cholesterol (-7.0%, p=0.02) and systolic blood pressure (-9.8%, p=0.002) compared to concentric training.
Why the study?
Steady-state eccentric exercise training improves cardiometabolic risk despite lesser cardiovascular demands than concentric training, but whether high-intensity interval eccentric training also reduces cardiometabolic risk is unknown.
Does short-term high-intensity interval eccentric training improve cardiometabolic risk markers compared to concentric training in sedentary overweight men?
RCT (n=20)
randomly assigned
Does short-term high-intensity interval eccentric training improve cardiometabolic risk markers compared to concentric training in sedentary overweight men?
Short-term eccentric HIIT rapidly improves cholesterol and blood pressure compared to concentric HIIT in sedentary overweight men.
Small trial leaves open ECC-HIIT efficacy for CMR reduction; larger RCTs needed before clinical consideration.
Background: Steady-state eccentric exercise training improves cardiometabolic risk (CMR) despite lesser cardiovascular demands compared with load-matched concentric training. Whether a high-intensity interval eccentric training is also effective reducing CMR is unknown. Aim: To compare the effects of a short-term high-intensity interval eccentric training (ECC-HIIT) with high-intensity interval concentric training (CONC-HIIT) on CMR in sedentary overweight men. Methods: Twenty men (age: 27.9 ± 5.3y, body massindex: 29.1 ± 3.1 kg·m−2) were randomly assigned to ECC-HIIT (n = 10) or CONC-HIIT (n = 10) delivered as six sessions, including 4 x 5:2 min work-to-rest ratio, at 80% peak concentric power output. Heart rate (HR), rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle soreness weremonitored during training sessions. Training effects on lipid profile, insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR), body composition, thigh circumference, isometric knee extensors maximal strength, resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) were determined. Results: Average training HR and RPE were −29%and −50%lower in ECC-HIIT in comparison with CONC-HIIT. Muscle soreness was initially greater after ECC-HIIT compared with CONC-HIIT. Significant changes in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (−7.0 ± 8.7%; p = .02 and −6.3 ± 14.4%; p = .03), SBP (−9.8 ± 7.8%; p = .002), and maximal thigh circumference (+2.5 ± 3.1%; p = .02) were observed following ECC-HIIT. No changes in any CMR marker were observed after CONC-HIIT. Moderate-to-large training effect sizes were obtained in thigh circumference, SBP, total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in response to ECC-HIIT. Conclusion: A two-week ECC-HIIT was well-tolerated and induced rapid onset improvements in cholesterol and blood pressure compared to conventional CONC-HIIT in sedentary overweight men.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peñailillo et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Sedentary overweight (n=20). High-intensity interval eccentric training (ECC-HIIT) vs. High-intensity interval concentric training (CONC-HIIT) was evaluated on Cardiometabolic risk markers including lipid profile, insulin sensitivity, body composition, and blood pressure. A two-week high-intensity interval eccentric training program significantly reduced total cholesterol (-7.0%, p=0.02) and systolic blood pressure (-9.8%, p=0.002) compared to concentric training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: