Why the study?
Although high-intensity interval training enhances cardiovascular health, research investigating the specific cardiovascular effects of different training modes was lacking.
Does resistance-type high-intensity interval training improve arterial stiffness, cardiac autonomic modulation, and cardiac biomarkers compared to cycling-type high-intensity interval training in healthy young men?
Does resistance-type high-intensity interval training improve arterial stiffness, cardiac autonomic modulation, and cardiac biomarkers compared to cycling-type high-intensity interval training in healthy young men?
In healthy young men, resistance-type HIIT and cycling-type HIIT elicit similar acute cardiac biomarker and autonomic responses, but resistance-type HIIT is more effective at acutely reducing arterial stiffness.
R-HIIT may reduce arterial stiffness more than C-HIIT acutely in young men; leaves open optimal mode for cardiovascular benefits.
Background High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiovascular health. However, there is a lack of research investigating the specific cardiovascular effects of different HIIT training modes. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the acute effects of cycling-type high intensity interval training (C-HIIT) and resistance-type high intensity interval training (R-HIIT) on arterial stiffness, cardiac autonomic modulation, and cardiac biomarkers in healthy young men. Methods This is a cross-over randomized trial. Eleven healthy active young men took part in both C-HIIT and R-HIIT. Cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI), heart rate variability (HRV), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were measured before, immediately and 30 min after the exercise in C-HIIT and R-HIIT. Meanwhile, blood samples for cardiac troponin-T (cTnT) and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were assessed using ELISA before, 5min and 35min after exercise. Results There was a significant time × group interaction effect ( P = 0.019, η p 2 = 0.182) and time main effect for ⊿CAVI ( P < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.729), and R-HIIT resulted in a more significant reduction in ⊿CAVI compared to C-HIIT (− 0.60 ± 0.30, P = 0.043, d = 0.924) immediately after exercise. There was a significant time main effect was observed for SBP ( P = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.304). A significant time main effect for lnHF ( P < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.782), lnRMSSD ( P < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.693), and LF/HF ( P = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.302) of HRV was observed. A significant time main effect was observed for cTnT ( P = 0.023, η p 2 = 0.193) and NT-proBNP ( P = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.334) of cardiac biomarkers. Conclusion R-HIIT and C-HIIT elicited similar acute responses in cardiac autonomic modulation and cardiac biomarkers. However, R-HIIT was more effective in reducing arterial stiffness in healthy young men. Furthermore, the increase in cardiac biomarkers induced by both C-HIIT and R-HIIT was reversible. Trial registration The study was prospectively registered on 22 February 2022 at www.chictr.org.cn with identification number ChiCTR2200056897.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: