Key result
Short-bout HIIT (10s) improved blood lactate (reduced by 28%; p<0.001), perceptual, and affective responses compared to long-bout HIIT (60s) in obese men, while both induced similar HR adaptations.
Why the study?
It was unknown how physiological, perceptual, and affective responses to high-intensity interval training compare between work-matched programs with different bout durations in obese males.
Does short-bout HIIT improve physiological, perceptual, and affective responses compared to long-bout HIIT in low-to-moderately active obese men?
RCT (n=16)
Does short-bout HIIT improve physiological, perceptual, and affective responses compared to long-bout HIIT in low-to-moderately active obese men?
p-value: p=<0.001
In obese men, short-bout HIIT may be more effective than long-bout HIIT for improving metabolic, perceptual, and affective responses, despite similar heart rate adaptations.
Short-bout HIIT may enhance tolerability in obese men; leaves open effects on adherence and outcomes in larger trials.
This study compared physiological, perceptual, and affective responses to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) between two work-matched programs with different bout durations in obese males. Sixteen low-to-moderately active obese men completed an eight-week cycling program of supervised HIIT (3 days/week) using either short bouts [48 × 10 s at 100% of peak power output (PPO) with 15 s of recovery (HIIT10)] or long bouts [8 × 60 s at 100% PPO with 90 s of recovery (HIIT60)]. Workload was progressively adjusted, to maintain high intensity (100% PPO), throughout training. Blood lactate (BLa), heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and feeling scale ratings (pleasure/displeasure) were measured in each HIIT session. Average HR decreased in the last 2 weeks of training in both groups by 2.2 ± 1.8% of peak HR (p < 0.001). Training resulted in a reduction in BLa during exercise by 28 ± 19% (p < 0.001) from the 10th min onward only in HIIT10. Similarly, during the last weeks of training, RPE decreased (by 1.0 ± 1.1 units, p < 0.05) and feeling scale ratings were improved only in HIIT10, while RPE remained unchanged and feeling scale ratings deteriorated in HIIT60 (from 3.0 ± 1.1 to 2.1 ± 0.9 units, p < 0.001). No differences in post-exercise enjoyment were found. Both HIIT formats induced similar HR adaptations, but improvement of BLa, perceptual and affective responses occurred only when bout duration was shorter. Our findings suggest that, in low-to-moderately active obese men, HIIT may be more effective in improving metabolic, perceptual, and affective responses when shorter, rather than longer, bouts of exercise are used.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsirigkakis et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Obesity (n=16). Short-bout high-intensity interval training (HIIT10) vs. Long-bout HIIT (HIIT60: 8 × 60 s at 100% peak power output with 90 s recovery) was evaluated on Physiological, perceptual, and affective responses (including blood lactate, heart rate, RPE, and feeling scale) (p=<0.001). Short-bout HIIT (10s) improved blood lactate (reduced by 28%; p<0.001), perceptual, and affective responses compared to long-bout HIIT (60s) in obese men, while both induced similar HR adaptations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: