Key result
Continuous training improves phase II O2-kinetics by ~33% while interval training shows no benefit.
Why the study?
Does interval training compared to continuous training improve oxygen uptake kinetics in patients with chronic heart failure?
RCT (n=21)
randomly assigned
Does interval training compared to continuous training improve oxygen uptake kinetics in patients with chronic heart failure?
Both continuous and interval training improve phase I O2-kinetics in chronic heart failure patients, but continuous training provides superior improvement in phase II O2-kinetics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Continuous training may better enhance phase II O2 kinetics than interval in HF; leaves open optimal regimen for hard outcomes.
Roditis et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in stable chronic heart failure (n=21). Interval training vs. Continuous training was evaluated on Phase I and Phase II O2-kinetics. Continuous training significantly improved phase II O2-kinetics (time constant decreased from 63.3 to 42.5 s; P=0.03), whereas interval training did not (59.6 to 58.9 s; P=ns).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: