Concept: High-intensity interval training
Endurance exercise training studies frequently show modest changes in VO2max with training and very limited responses in some subjects. By contrast, studies using interval training (IT) or combined IT and continuous training (CT) have reported mean increases in VO2max of up to ∼1.0 L · min(-1). This raises questions about the role of exercise intensity and the trainability of VO2max. To address this topic we analyzed IT and IT/CT studies published in English from 1965-2012. Inclusion criteria were: 1)≥3 healthy sedentary/recreationally active humans <45 yrs old, 2) training duration 6-13 weeks, 3) ≥3 days/week, 4) ≥10 minutes of high intensity work, 5) ≥1∶1 work/rest ratio, and 6) results reported as mean ± SD or SE, ranges of change, or individual data. Due to heterogeneity (I(2) value of 70), statistical synthesis of the data used a random effects model. The summary statistic of interest was the change in VO2max. A total of 334 subjects (120 women) from 37 studies were identified. Participants were grouped into 40 distinct training groups, so the unit of analysis was 40 rather than 37. An increase in VO2max of 0.51 L ·min(-1) (95% CI: 0.43 to 0.60 L · min(-1)) was observed. A subset of 9 studies, with 72 subjects, that featured longer intervals showed even larger (∼0.8-0.9 L · min(-1)) changes in VO2max with evidence of a marked response in all subjects. These results suggest that ideas about trainability and VO2max should be further evaluated with standardized IT or IT/CT training programs.
Declining muscle power during advancing age predicts falls and loss of independence. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) may improve muscle power, but remains largely unstudied in ageing participants.
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 5-week high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-to-vigorous intensity continuous training (MVCT) on cardiometabolic health outcomes and enjoyment of exercise in obese young women.
-Small studies have suggested that high intensity interval training (HIIT) is superior to moderate continuous training (MCT) in reversing cardiac remodeling and increasing aerobic capacity in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The present multicenter trial compared 12 weeks supervised interventions of HIIT, MCT, or a recommendation of regular exercise (RRE).
High-intensity interval exercise training for public health: a big HIT or shall we HIT it on the head?
- The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
- Published about 5 years ago
The efficacy of high-intensity interval training for a broad spectrum of cardio-metabolic health outcomes is not in question. Rather, the effectiveness of this form of exercise is at stake. In this paper we debate the issues concerning the likely success or failure of high-intensity interval training interventions for population-level health promotion.
Exercise adherence is affected by factors including perceptions of enjoyment, time availability, and intrinsic motivation. Approximately 50% of individuals withdraw from an exercise program within the first 6 mo of initiation, citing lack of time as a main influence. Time efficient exercise such as high intensity interval training (HIIT) may provide an alternative to moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICT) to elicit substantial health benefits. This study examined differences in enjoyment, affect, and perceived exertion between MICT and HIIT. Twelve recreationally active men and women (age = 29.5 ± 10.7 yr, VO2max = 41.4 ± 4.1 mL/kg/min, BMI = 23.1 ± 2.1 kg/m2) initially performed a VO2max test on a cycle ergometer to determine appropriate workloads for subsequent exercise bouts. Each subject returned for two additional exercise trials, performing either HIIT (eight 1 min bouts of cycling at 85% maximal workload (Wmax) with 1 min of active recovery between bouts) or MICT (20 min of cycling at 45% Wmax) in randomized order. During exercise, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), affect, and blood lactate concentration (BLa) were measured. Additionally, the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) was completed after exercise. Results showed higher enjoyment (p = 0.013) in response to HIIT (103.8 ± 9.4) versus MICT (84.2 ± 19.1). Eleven of 12 participants (92%) preferred HIIT to MICT. However, affect was lower (p<0.05) and HR, RPE, and BLa were higher (p<0.05) in HIIT versus MICT. Although HIIT is more physically demanding than MICT, individuals report greater enjoyment due to its time efficiency and constantly changing stimulus.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), high-intensity continuous training (HICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on markers of male reproduction including seminal markers of oxidative stress and inflammation as well as semen quality and sperm DNA integrity in healthy human subjects. A total of 397 healthy male volunteers were screened and 280 were randomly assigned to one of the MICT (n = 70), HICT (n = 70), HIIT (n = 70) and non-exercise (NON-EX, n = 70) groups. Subjects had inflammatory markers (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α), oxidants (ROS, MDA and 8-isoprostane), antioxidants (SOD, catalase and TAC), semen parameters and sperm DNA damage measured at baseline (T1), the end of week 12 (T2), the end of week 24 (T3), and 7 (T4) and 30 days (T5) after training. Chronic MICT, HICT and HIIT attenuated seminal markers of oxidative stress and inflammation with different kinetics for the three types of exercise (P < 0.05), and these changes were correlated with favorable improvements in semen quality parameters and sperm DNA integrity (P < 0.05). MICT was superior to HICT and HIIT in the improvements of markers of male reproductive function (P < 0.05). In conclusion, different exercise modalities favorably affect markers of male reproduction with different kinetics, suggesting intensity-, duration- and type-dependent adaptations to exercise training in healthy human subjects.
High-intensity interval training (HIT), in a variety of forms, is today one of the most effective means of improving cardiorespiratory and metabolic function and, in turn, the physical performance of athletes. HIT involves repeated short-to-long bouts of rather high-intensity exercise interspersed with recovery periods. For team and racquet sport players, the inclusion of sprints and all-out efforts into HIT programmes has also been shown to be an effective practice. It is believed that an optimal stimulus to elicit both maximal cardiovascular and peripheral adaptations is one where athletes spend at least several minutes per session in their ‘red zone,’ which generally means reaching at least 90 % of their maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max). While use of HIT is not the only approach to improve physiological parameters and performance, there has been a growth in interest by the sport science community for characterizing training protocols that allow athletes to maintain long periods of time above 90 % of [Formula: see text]O2max (T@[Formula: see text]O2max). In addition to T@[Formula: see text]O2max, other physiological variables should also be considered to fully characterize the training stimulus when programming HIT, including cardiovascular work, anaerobic glycolytic energy contribution and acute neuromuscular load and musculoskeletal strain. Prescription for HIT consists of the manipulation of up to nine variables, which include the work interval intensity and duration, relief interval intensity and duration, exercise modality, number of repetitions, number of series, as well as the between-series recovery duration and intensity. The manipulation of any of these variables can affect the acute physiological responses to HIT. This article is Part I of a subsequent II-part review and will discuss the different aspects of HIT programming, from work/relief interval manipulation to the selection of exercise mode, using different examples of training cycles from different sports, with continued reference to T@[Formula: see text]O2max and cardiovascular responses. Additional programming and periodization considerations will also be discussed with respect to other variables such as anaerobic glycolytic system contribution (as inferred from blood lactate accumulation), neuromuscular load and musculoskeletal strain (Part II).
PURPOSE: Commencing selected workouts with low muscle glycogen availability augments several markers of training adaptation compared to undertaking the same sessions with normal glycogen content. However, low glycogen availability reduces the capacity to perform high intensity (>85% of peak aerobic power [V˙O2peak]) endurance exercise. We determined whether a low dose of caffeine could partially rescue the reduction in maximal self-selected power output observed when individuals commenced high intensity interval training (HIT) with low (LOW) compared to normal (NORM) glycogen availability. METHODS: Twelve endurance-trained cyclists/triathletes performed four experimental trials using a double-blind Latin square design. Muscle glycogen content was manipulated via exercise-diet interventions so that two experimental trials were commenced with LOW and two with NORM muscle glycogen availability. Sixty minutes prior to an experimental trial, subjects ingested a capsule containing anhydrous caffeine (CAFF; 3 mg·kg body mass) or placebo (PLBO). Instantaneous power output (W) was measured throughout HIT (8 × 5 min bouts at maximum self-selected intensity with 1 min recovery). RESULTS: There were significant main effects for both pre-exercise glycogen content and caffeine ingestion on power output. LOW reduced power output by ∼8% compared to NORM (P < 0.01) whereas caffeine increased power output by 2.8% and 3.5% for NORM and LOW respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that caffeine enhanced power output independently of muscle glycogen concentration but could not fully restore power output to levels commensurate with that when subjects commenced exercise with normal glycogen availability. However, the reported increase in power output does provide a likely performance benefit and may provide a means to further enhance the already augmented training response observed when selected sessions are commenced with reduced muscle glycogen availability.
In heart transplant (HTx) recipients, there has been reluctance to recommend high-intensity interval training (HIIT) due to denervation and chronotropic impairment of the heart. We compared the effects of 12 weeks' HIIT versus continued moderate exercise (CON) on exercise capacity and chronotropic response in stable HTx recipients >12 months after transplantation in a randomized crossover trial. The study was completed by 16 HTx recipients (mean age 52 years, 75% males). Baseline peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak ) was 22.9 mL/kg/min. HIIT increased VO2peak by 4.9 ± 2.7 mL/min/kg (17%) and CON by 2.6 ± 2.2 mL/kg/min (10%) (significantly higher in HIIT; p < 0.001). During HIIT, systolic blood pressure decreased significantly (p = 0.037) with no significant change in CON (p = 0.241; between group difference p = 0.027). Peak heart rate (HRpeak ) increased significantly by 4.3 beats per minute (p = 0.014) after HIIT with no significant change in CON (p = 0.34; between group difference p = 0.027). Heart rate recovery (HRrecovery ) improved in both groups with a trend toward greater improvement after HIIT. The 5-month washout showed a significant loss of improvement. HIIT was well tolerated, had a superior effect on oxygen uptake, and led to an unexpected increase in HRpeak accompanied by a faster HRrecovery . This indicates that the benefits of HIIT are partly a result of improved chronotropic response.