Key result
Very-low-volume HIIT was perceived as less strenuous than low-volume HIIT (RPE 4.0 vs 6.2; p<0.01) and significantly increased Wingate peak power after 3 weeks in healthy men.
Why the study?
The short-term psychological and physiological effects of varying the volume of high-intensity interval training were evaluated.
Does very-low-volume HIIT improve psychological and physiological responses compared to low-volume HIIT in healthy adult males?
RCT (n=23)
Randomly assigned
Does very-low-volume HIIT improve psychological and physiological responses compared to low-volume HIIT in healthy adult males?
Absolute Event Rate: 4% vs 6.2%
p-value: p=<0.01
In healthy young men, very-low-volume HIIT enhances anaerobic capacity and is perceived as less strenuous and more pleasurable than low-volume HIIT.
May support very-low-volume HIIT tolerability in healthy adults; leaves open durability and generalizability to clinical groups.
We assessed the short-term effects of varying the volume of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on psychological and physiological responses of 23 healthy adult males ( M = 21 years; M peak oxygen uptake [VO 2peak ] = 47.2 ml·kg −1 ·min −1 ). Participants were randomly assigned to low- and very-low-volume HIIT groups and engaged in nine supervised exercise sessions over three weeks. The low-volume HIIT group performed 8-12 60-second work bouts on a cycle ergometer at the peak power output achieved during the incremental test, interspersed by 75 seconds of low-intensity active recovery. The very-low-volume HIIT performed 4-6 work bouts with the same intensity, duration, and rest intervals. During training, participants’ ratings of perceived exertion (Borg Category Ratio-10 scale) and their affective responses (Feeling Scale −5/+5) during the last 15 seconds of each work bout were recorded. Physiological data were VO 2peak , endurance, and anaerobic performance before and after the intervention. Throughout training, participants in the very-low-volume group (relative to the low-volume group) reported lower ratings of perceived exertion in Week 1 ( M = 4.1 vs. M = 6.3; p < .01) and Week 3 ( M = 4.0 vs. M = 6.2; p < .01), and higher affective response in these same two weeks (Week 1: M = 1.9 vs. M = 0.3; p = .04; Week 3: M = 2.1 vs. M = 0.9; p = .06). Regarding physical fitness, Wingate peak power increased significantly after training in the very-low-volume HIIT group ( M = 1,049 W vs. M = 1,222 W; p < .05), but not in the low-volume HIIT group ( M = 1,050 W vs. M = 1,076 W). No significant change was found after training in physiological variables of peak power output, VO 2peak , and endurance performance. In summary, in this short-term training period, the very-low-volume HIIT enhanced anaerobic capacity and was perceived as less strenuous and more pleasurable than low-volume HIIT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Machado et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Healthy (n=23). Very-low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. Low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) was evaluated on Rating of perceived exertion in Week 3 (p=<0.01). Very-low-volume HIIT was perceived as less strenuous than low-volume HIIT (RPE 4.0 vs 6.2; p<0.01) and significantly increased Wingate peak power after 3 weeks in healthy men.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: