A Multi-Center Comparison of O Trainability Between Interval Training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training.2peak

Camilla J Williams; Brendon J Gurd; Jacob T Bonafiglia; Sarah Voisin; Zhixiu Li; Nicholas Harvey; Ilaria Croci; Jenna L Taylor; Trishan Gajanand; Joyce S Ramos; Robert G Fassett; Jonathan P Little; Monique E Francois; Christopher M Hearon; Satyam Sarma; Sylvan L J E Janssen; Emeline M Van Craenenbroeck; Paul Beckers; Véronique A Cornelissen; Nele Pattyn; Erin J Howden; Shelley E Keating; Anja Bye; Dorthe Stensvold; Ulrik Wisloff; Ioannis Papadimitriou; Xu Yan; David J Bishop; Nir Eynon; Jeff S Coombes
There is heterogeneity in the observed O response to similar exercise training, and different exercise approaches produce variable degrees of exercise response (trainability). The aim of this study was to combine data from different laboratories to compare O trainability between various volumes of interval training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training (MICT). For interval training, volumes were classified by the duration of total interval time. High-volume High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) included studies that had participants complete more than 15 min of high intensity efforts per session. Low-volume HIIT/Sprint Interval Training (SIT) included studies using less than 15 min of high intensity efforts per session. In total, 677 participants across 18 aerobic exercise training interventions from eight different universities in five countries were included in the analysis. Participants had completed 3 weeks or more of either high-volume HIIT ( = 299), low-volume HIIT/SIT ( = 116), or MICT ( = 262) and were predominately men ( = 495) with a mix of healthy, elderly and clinical populations. Each training intervention improved mean O at the group level ( < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, high-volume HIIT had a significantly greater ( < 0.05) absolute O increase (0.29 L/min) compared to MICT (0.20 L/min) and low-volume HIIT/SIT (0.18 L/min). Adjusted relative O increase was also significantly greater ( < 0.01) in high-volume HIIT (3.3 ml/kg/min) than MICT (2.4 ml/kg/min) and insignificantly greater ( = 0.09) than low-volume HIIT/SIT (2.5 mL/kg/min). Based on a high threshold for a likely response (technical error of measurement plus the minimal clinically important difference), high-volume HIIT had significantly more ( < 0.01) likely responders (31%) compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT (16%) and MICT (21%). Covariates such as age, sex, the individual study, population group, sessions per week, study duration and the average between pre and post O explained only 17.3% of the variance in O trainability. In conclusion, high-volume HIIT had more likely responders to improvements in O compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT and MICT.2peak
ISSN 1664-042X
Published 01 Jan 2019
Volume 10
Pages 19
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2019.00019
Type Journal Article