Key result
Low-volume high-intensity training significantly increased heart rate variability (SDNN increased to 84.6) and decreased arterial stiffness compared to high-volume moderate-intensity training and control (p<0.05).
Why the study?
The chronic effects of high-volume moderate-intensity training versus low-volume high-intensity training on heart rate variability and arterial stiffness in sedentary adult men were investigated.
Does low-volume high-intensity training improve heart rate variability and arterial stiffness more than high-volume moderate-intensity training in sedentary adult men?
RCT (n=45)
randomly assigned
No
Does low-volume high-intensity training improve heart rate variability and arterial stiffness more than high-volume moderate-intensity training in sedentary adult men?
p-value: p=<0.05
Low-volume high-intensity training is more effective than isocaloric high-volume moderate-intensity training for improving cardiac autonomic function and arterial stiffness in sedentary adult men.
LVHIT yields superior HRV and PWV gains versus HVMIT in sedentary men; extends evidence that intensity exceeds volume at matched caloric expenditure.
Background: The current study investigated the chronic effects of high-volume moderate-intensity training and low-volume high-intensity training on heart rate variability (HRV) and arterial stiffness in sedentary adult men. Materials and methods: Forty-five males (age: 42± 5.7 yrs.) were randomly assigned into control group (n=15), high-volume moderate-intensity training (HVMIT) (n=15), and low-volume high-intensity training (LVHIT) (n=15). The HVMIT group ran three times per week, on the treadmill at 50% to 60% of VO2max for 45 to 60 minutes, while the LVHIT trained at 70% to 85% of VO2max for 25 to 40 minutes. Both training programs were equated by caloric expenditure. HRV, Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV), hemodynamic variables, and body composition were measured before and after 12 weeks.Results: Both protocols (HVMIT and LVHIT) significantly increased the Standard deviation of NN intervals (SDNN) and High-frequency (HF) bands after 12 weeks (p ˂ 0.05). The LF/HF ratio decreased significantly in both training groups (p ˂ 0.05). However, these changes were significantly greater in the LVHIT protocol (p ˂ 0.05). Furthermore, the Root mean square of successive RR interval differences (RMSSD) significantly increased only in the LVHIT protocol (P ˂ 0.05). Moreover, a significant decrease in low-frequency (LF) and PWV was only observed following the LVHIT protocol (P ˂ 0.05). Conclusion: This study indicates that the LVHIT protocol is more effective and efficient for improving HRV variables and PWV than the HVMIT protocol.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soltani et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Sedentary lifestyle (n=45). Low-volume high-intensity training (LVHIT) vs. High-volume moderate-intensity training (HVMIT) and Control was evaluated on Heart rate variability (SDNN) and arterial stiffness (PWV) (p=<0.05). Low-volume high-intensity training significantly increased heart rate variability (SDNN increased to 84.6) and decreased arterial stiffness compared to high-volume moderate-intensity training and control (p<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: