An 8-week high-intensity interval training program significantly improved forced vital capacity (4.18 vs 3.88 L, p=0.020) and other pulmonary function parameters compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in healthy college students.
RCT (n=70)
Open-label
Block randomization
No
Does an 8-week high-intensity interval training program improve pulmonary function compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in healthy college students?
An 8-week high-intensity interval training program elicits greater improvements in most pulmonary function parameters compared to an iso-energetic moderate-intensity continuous training regimen in healthy college students.
Absolute Event Rate: 4.18% vs 3.88%
p-value: p=0.020
Objectives: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) are established aerobic exercise regimens known to enhance cardiopulmonary fitness. However, comparative data on their effects on lung function in healthy young adults are limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the impact of an 8-week HIIT versus MICT programme on pulmonary function parameters in college students. Materials and Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, 70 healthy participants (aged 20–35 years) were randomly allocated in equal numbers to HIIT or MICT using block randomisation with sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelope concealment. HIIT sessions comprised 8–12 × 30 s high-intensity intervals (75–95% maximum heart rate MHR) with 90 s recovery, performed thrice weekly. MICT involved 30–40 min continuous cycling at 50–75% MHR, 5 times weekly. Pulmonary function was assessed before and after the intervention using spirometry, measuring forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), FEV 1 /FVC ratio, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) and forced expiratory flow at 25–75% (FEF 25–75% ). Within and between-group differences were analysed using paired and unpaired t -tests, respectively; significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Both groups showed significant within-group improvements across all spirometric indices ( p < 0.001). Intergroup comparisons favoured HIIT for FVC (4.18 ± 0.47 vs. 3.88 ± 0.58 L; p = 0.020), FEV 1 (3.43 ± 0.41 vs. 3.10 ± 0.36 L; p = 0.001), PEFR (534 ± 51 vs. 485 ± 56 L/min; p < 0.001), MVV (121 ± 13 vs. 109 ± 14 L/min; p < 0.001) and FEF 25–75% (3.81 ± 0.46 vs 3.53 ± 0.53 L/s; p = 0.023). No significant between-group difference was noted in the FEV 1 /FVC ratio ( p = 0.793). Conclusion: An 8-week HIIT protocol elicits greater improvements in pulmonary function than an iso-energetic MICT regimen. The term iso-energetic is used to indicate that both HIIT and MICT were designed to deliver a comparable overall aerobic workload as per American College of Sports Medicine guidelines, despite differences in intensity and duration in healthy college students. HIIT may be recommended for optimising ventilatory capacity in this population.
Kumar et al. (Sat,) conducted a rct in Healthy (n=70). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. Moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) was evaluated on Forced vital capacity (FVC) at 8 weeks (p=0.020). An 8-week high-intensity interval training program significantly improved forced vital capacity (4.18 vs 3.88 L, p=0.020) and other pulmonary function parameters compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in healthy college students.