Key result
High-intensity interval training was not superior to continuous endurance training or pyramid training for increasing peak work capacity (22.8% vs 21.1% vs 24.8% increase; between groups p=NS).
Why the study?
Does high-intensity interval training or pyramid training improve peak work capacity compared to continuous endurance training in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing cardiac rehabilitation?
RCT (n=60)
randomized
Does high-intensity interval training or pyramid training improve peak work capacity compared to continuous endurance training in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing cardiac rehabilitation?
High-intensity interval training, pyramid training, and continuous endurance training yield comparable improvements in peak work capacity during cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Continuous endurance training suffices for CAD cardiac rehab; confirms comparable peak work capacity gains with HIIT or pyramid protocols.
BACKGROUND: High-intensity interval training has recently emerged as superior to continuous endurance training in cardiac rehabilitation upon other training regimes. Individually tailored continuous endurance training and pyramid training could induce comparable effects on peak work capacity as high intensity interval training. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized study. METHODS: Effects of the following isocaloric cycle ergometer protocols on peak work capacity have been assessed in patients with coronary artery disease (n = 60) during 6 weeks of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation, i.e. 18 supervised sessions of exercise training: (1) continuous endurance training (n = 20): 33 min at 65-85% peak heart rate; (2) high intensity interval training (n = 20): 4 × 4 min intervals at 85-95% peak heart rate, each followed by 3 min of active recovery at 60-70% peak heart rate; (3) pyramid training (n = 20): 3 × 8 min of stepwise load increase and subsequent decrease from 65-95-65% peak heart rate, supplemented by 2 min recovery at 60-70% peak heart rate between pyramids. All protocols were preceded by 5 min of warm-up and followed by 5 min cool-down at 60-70% peak heart rate. RESULTS: Attendance during exercise sessions was 99.2%. There were significant increases in peak work capacity of comparable magnitude in all three training groups (begin vs. end: continuous endurance training: 136.0 ± 49.6 W vs. 163.4 ± 60.8 W (21.1 ± 8.5%); high-intensity interval training: 141.0 ± 60.4 W vs. 171.1 ± 69.8 W (22.8 ± 6.6%); pyramid training: 128.7 ± 50.6 W vs. 158.5 ± 57.9 W (24.8 ± 10.8%); within groups all p < 0.001; between groups, p = not significant). CONCLUSION: Endurance training protocols assessed in this study all led to significant increases in peak work capacity of comparable magnitude. Our findings suggest that these protocols can be used interchangeably, which will lead to further individualization of exercise prescription and may therefore result in improved adherence to lifelong behavioural changes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tschentscher et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in coronary artery disease (n=60). High-intensity interval training vs. Continuous endurance training and pyramid training was evaluated on peak work capacity (p=not significant). High-intensity interval training was not superior to continuous endurance training or pyramid training for increasing peak work capacity (22.8% vs 21.1% vs 24.8% increase; between groups p=NS).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: