Dataset Information

Six high-intensity interval training sessions over 5 days increases maximal oxygen uptake, endurance capacity, and sub-maximal exercise fat oxidation as much as 6 high-intensity interval training sessions over 2 weeks.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) induces similar or even superior adaptations compared to continuous endurance training. Indeed, just 6 HIIT sessions over 2 weeks significantly improves maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max), submaximal exercise fat oxidation, and endurance performance. Whether even faster adaptations can be achieved with HIIT is not known. Thus, we aimed to determine whether 2 sessions of HIIT per day, separated by 3 h, every other day for 5 days (double HIIT (HIIT-D), n = 15) could increase VO_2max, submaximal exercise fat oxidation, and endurance capacity as effectively as 6 sessions of HIIT over 2 weeks (single HIIT (HIIT-S), n = 13).

Methods

Each training session consisted of 10 × 60 s of cycling at 100% of VO_2max interspersed with 75 s of low-intensity cycling at 60 watt (W). Pre- and post-training assessments included VO_2max, time to exhaustion at ∼80% of VO_2max, and 60-min cycling trials at ∼67% of VO_2max.

Results

Similar increases (p < 0.05) in VO_2max (HIIT-D: 7.7% vs. HIIT-S: 6.0%, p > 0.05) and endurance capacity (HIIT-D: 80.1% vs. HIIT-S: 79.2%, p > 0.05) were observed. Submaximal exercise carbohydrate oxidation was reduced in the 2 groups after exercise training (HIIT-D: 9.2%, p = 0.014 vs. HIIT-S: 18.8%, p = 0.012) while submaximal exercise fat oxidation was significantly increased in HIIT-D (15.5%, p = 0.048) but not in HIIT-S (9.3%, p = 0.290).

Conclusion

Six HIIT sessions over 5 days was as effective in increasing VO_2max and endurance capacity and was more effective in improving submaximal exercise fat oxidation than 6 HIIT sessions over 2 weeks.

SUBMITTER: Atakan MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8343121 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cardiovascular and cardiometabolic diseases are leading causes of death worldwide. Exercise favorably affects this problem, however only few invest (enough) time to favorably influence cardiometabolic risk-factors and cardiac morphology/performance. Time-effective, high-intensity, low-volume exercise protocols might increase people's commitment to exercise. To date, most research has focused on high-intensity interval training (HIIT), the endurance type of HIT, while corresponding HIT-resistance training protocols (HIT-RT) are rarely evaluated. In this study we compared the effect of HIIT vs. HIT-RT, predominately on cardiometabolic and cardiac parameters in untrained, overweight-obese, middle-aged men. Eligible, untrained men aged 30-50 years old in full-time employment were extracted from two joint exercise studies that randomly assigned participants to a HIIT, HIT-RT or corresponding control group. HIIT predominately consisted of interval training 90 s-12 min, (2-4 sessions/week), HIT-RT (2-3 sessions/week) was applied as a single set resistance training to muscular failure. Core intervention length of both protocols was 16 weeks. Main inclusion criteria were overweight-obese status (BMI 25-35 kg/m2) and full employment (occupational working time: ≥38.5 h/week). Primary study-endpoint was the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) Z-Score, secondary study-endpoints were ventricular stroke volume index (SVI) and myocardial mass index (MMI) as determined by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The Intention to treat (ITT) principle was applied to analyze the summarized data set. Twenty-seven eligible men of the HIT-RT and 30 men of the HIIT group were included in the ITT. Both interventions significantly (p < 0.001) improve the MetS Z-Score, however the effect of HIIT was superior (p = 0.049). In parallel, HIT-RT and HIIT significantly affect SVI and MMI, with the effect of HIIT being much more pronounced (p < 0.001). Although HIIT endurance exercise was superior in favorably affecting cardiometabolic risk and particularly cardiac performance, both exercise methods positively affect cardiometabolic risk factors in this overweight to obese, middle-aged cohort of males with low time resources. Thus, the main practical application of our finding might be that in general overweight-obese people can freely choose their preferred exercise type (HIIT-END or HIT-RT) to improve their cardiometabolic health, while investing an amount of time that should be feasible for everybody. Trial Registrations: NCT01406730, NCT01766791.

Project description:We determined the effect of concurrent training incorporating either high-intensity interval training (HIT) or moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on maximal strength, counter-movement jump (CMJ) performance, and body composition adaptations, compared with single-mode resistance training (RT). Twenty-three recreationally-active males (mean ± SD: age, 29.6 ± 5.5 y; [Formula: see text], 44 ± 11 mL kg-1·min-1) underwent 8 weeks (3 sessions·wk-1) of either: (1) HIT combined with RT (HIT+RT group, n = 8), (2) work-matched MICT combined with RT (MICT+RT group, n = 7), or (3) RT performed alone (RT group, n = 8). Measures of aerobic capacity, maximal (1-RM) strength, CMJ performance and body composition (DXA) were obtained before (PRE), mid-way (MID), and after (POST) training. Maximal (one-repetition maximum [1-RM]) leg press strength was improved from PRE to POST for RT (mean change ± 90% confidence interval; 38.5 ± 8.5%; effect size [ES] ± 90% confidence interval; 1.26 ± 0.24; P < 0.001), HIT+RT (28.7 ± 5.3%; ES, 1.17 ± 0.19; P < 0.001), and MICT+RT (27.5 ± 4.6%, ES, 0.81 ± 0.12; P < 0.001); however, the magnitude of this change was greater for RT vs. both HIT+RT (7.4 ± 8.7%; ES, 0.40 ± 0.40) and MICT+RT (8.2 ± 9.9%; ES, 0.60 ± 0.45). There were no substantial between-group differences in 1-RM bench press strength gain. RT induced greater changes in peak CMJ force vs. HIT+RT (6.8 ± 4.5%; ES, 0.41 ± 0.28) and MICT+RT (9.9 ± 11.2%; ES, 0.54 ± 0.65), and greater improvements in maximal CMJ rate of force development (RFD) vs. HIT+RT (24.1 ± 26.1%; ES, 0.72 ± 0.88). Lower-body lean mass was similarly increased for RT (4.1 ± 2.0%; ES; 0.33 ± 0.16; P = 0.023) and MICT+RT (3.6 ± 2.4%; ES; 0.45 ± 0.30; P = 0.052); however, this change was attenuated for HIT+RT (1.8 ± 1.6%; ES; 0.13 ± 0.12; P = 0.069). We conclude that concurrent training incorporating either HIT or work-matched MICT similarly attenuates improvements in maximal lower-body strength and indices of CMJ performance compared with RT performed alone. This suggests endurance training intensity is not a critical mediator of interference to maximal strength gain during short-term concurrent training.