Key result
Long HIIT promoted significantly higher acute increases in VO2peak compared to Short HIIT and moderate intensity continuous training (43 vs 32 and 37 mL/kg/min, respectively; P<0.05).
Why the study?
High-intensity interval training can be performed with different effort-to-rest configurations that largely influence training responses, but acute physiological responses between configurations and continuous training needed comparison.
Do different high-intensity interval training protocols (Short vs Long) compared to moderate intensity continuous training alter acute cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses in healthy young men?
RCT (n=10)
Randomised cross-over
Do different high-intensity interval training protocols (Short vs Long) compared to moderate intensity continuous training alter acute cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses in healthy young men?
Absolute Event Rate: 43% vs 32%
p-value: p=< 0.05
Long HIIT elicits higher acute cardiorespiratory and perceptual demands than Short HIIT and MICT in healthy young men, despite Short HIIT being performed at higher velocities.
Long HIIT elicits greater acute cardiorespiratory and perceptual demand than short HIIT or MICT; leaves open optimal configurations for chronic adaptations.
High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) can be performed with different effort to rest time‐configurations, and this can largely influence training responses. The purpose of the study was to compare the acute physiological responses of two HIIT and one moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) protocol in young men. A randomised cross‐over study with 10 men [age, 28.3 ± 5.5years; weight, 77.3 ± 9.3 kg; height, 1.8 ± 0.1 m; peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 peak), 44 ± 11 mL.kg −1 .min −1 ]. Participants performed a cardiorespiratory test on a treadmill to assess VO 2 peak, velocity associated with VO 2 peak ( v VO 2 peak), peak heart rate (HRpeak) and perceived exertion (RPE). Then participants performed three protocols equated by distance: Short HIIT (29 bouts of 30s at v VO 2 peak, interspersed by 30s of passive recovery, 29 min in total), Long HIIT (3 bouts of 4 min at 90% of v VO 2 peak, interspersed by 3 min of recovery at 60% of v VO 2 peak, 21 min in total) and MICT (21 min at 70% of v VO 2 peak). The protocols were performed in a randomised order with ≥48 h between them. VO 2 , HRpeak and RPE were compared. VO 2 peak in Long HIIT was significantly higher than Short HIIT and MICT (43 ± 11 vs 32 ± 8 and 37 ± 8 mL.kg −1 .min −1 , respectively, P < 0.05), as well as peak HR (181 ± 10 vs 168 ± 8 and 167 ± 11, respectively, P < 0.05), and RPE (17 ± 4 vs 14 ± 4 and 15 ± 4, respectively, P < 0.05), with no difference between Short HIIT and MICT. In conclusion, Long HIIT promoted higher acute increases in VO 2 , HR and RPE than Short HIIT and MICT, suggesting a higher demand on the cardiorespiratory system. Short HIIT and MICT presented similar physiologic and perceptual responses, despite Short HIIT being performed at higher velocities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Naves et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Healthy young men (n=10). Long High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) vs. Short HIIT and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training (MICT) was evaluated on VO2peak (mL.kg-1.min-1) (p=< 0.05). Long HIIT promoted significantly higher acute increases in VO2peak compared to Short HIIT and moderate intensity continuous training (43 vs 32 and 37 mL/kg/min, respectively; P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: