Key result
An 8-week low-volume high-intensity interval training program did not significantly improve maximal oxygen consumption compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in healthy, sedentary men (adjusted difference 0.98 ml/kg/min, p=0.54).
Why the study?
HIIT may lead to greater increases in cardiorespiratory fitness than MICT, but current evidence remains inconclusive.
Does high-intensity interval training improve maximal oxygen consumption and blood pressure compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in healthy men?
RCT (n=44)
Single-blind
Permuted blocks with a 1:1 ratio
No
Does high-intensity interval training improve maximal oxygen consumption and blood pressure compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in healthy men?
Mean Difference: 0.98 (95% CI -2.26–4.23)
Absolute Event Rate: 42.7% vs 44.1%
p-value: p=0.54
In healthy men, low-volume high-intensity interval training does not significantly improve maximal oxygen consumption more than moderate-intensity continuous training, while the latter provides a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure.
HIIT matches MICT for VO2max gains but not SBP reduction; extends comparative RCT data favoring MICT when BP lowering is prioritized.
INTRODUCTION: Aerobic exercise generates increased cardiorespiratory fitness, which results in a protective factor for cardiovascular disease. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) might produce higher increases on cardiorespiratory fitness in comparison with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT); however, current evidence is not conclusive. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a low-volume HIIT and a MICT on maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure during eight weeks in healthy men between 18 and 44 years of age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial. Forty-four volunteers were randomized to HIIT (n=22) or MICT (n=22). Both groups performed 24 sessions on a treadmill. The HIIT group completed 15 bouts of 30 seconds (90-95%, maximal heart rate, HRmax), while the MICT group completed 40 minutes of continuous exercise (65-75% HRmax). Results: Intra-group analysis showed an increase in VO2max of 3.5 ml/kg/min [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.02 to 4.93; p=0.0001] in HIIT and 1.9 ml/kg/min (95% CI -0.98 to 4.82; p=0.18) in MICT. However, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (1.01 ml/kg/min. 95% CI -2.16 to 4.18, p=0.52). MICT generated a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure compared to HIIT (median 8 mm Hg; p<0.001). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups for DBP. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated no significant change in VO2max with a low-volume HIIT protocol versus MICT after 24 sessions. In contrast, MICT provided a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure compared to HIIT. The study is registered as a clinical trial via clinicaltrials.gov with identifier number: NCT02288403.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arboleda-Serna et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Healthy, sedentary men (n=44). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. Moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) (40 minutes at 65-75% HRmax) was evaluated on Maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) (MD 0.98, 95% CI -2.26 to 4.23, p=0.54). An 8-week low-volume high-intensity interval training program did not significantly improve maximal oxygen consumption compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in healthy, sedentary men (adjusted difference 0.98 ml/kg/min, p=0.54).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: