Dejan Reljic1,2, Felix Wittmann3, Joachim E Fischer3. 1. Department of Medicine 1-Gastroenterology, Pneumology and Endocrinology, Hector-Center for Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University Hospital Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. dejan.reljic@uk-erlangen.de. 2. Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. dejan.reljic@uk-erlangen.de. 3. Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE:High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is emerging as an effective and time-efficient exercise strategy for health promotion. However, most HIIT studies are conducted in laboratory settings and evidence regarding the efficacy of time-efficient "low-volume" HIIT is based mainly on demanding "all-out" protocols. Thus, the aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility and efficacy of two low-volume (≤ 30 min time-effort/week), non-all-out HIIT protocols, performed 2 ×/week over 8 weeks in a community-based fitness centre. METHODS:Thirty-four sedentary men and women were randomised to either 2 × 4-min HIIT (2 × 4-HIIT) or 5 × 1-min HIIT (5 × 1-HIIT) at 85-95% maximal heart rate (HRmax), or an active control group performing moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT, 76 min/week) at 65-75% HRmax. RESULTS: The exercise protocols were well tolerated and no adverse events occurred. 2 × 4-HIIT and 5 × 1-HIIT exhibited lower dropout rates (17 and 8 vs. 30%) than MICT. All training modes improved VO2max (2 × 4-HIIT: + 20%, P < 0.01; 5 × 1-HIIT: + 27%, P < 0.001; MICT: + 16%, P < 0.05), but the HIIT protocols required 60% less time commitment. Both HIIT protocols and MICT had positive impact on cholesterol profiles. Only 5 × 1-HIIT significantly improved waist circumference (P < 0.05) and subjective work ability (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that low-volume HIIT can be feasibly implemented in a community-based setting. Moreover, our data suggest that practical (non-all-out) HIIT that requires as little as 30 min/week, either performed as 2 × 4-HIIT or 5 × 1-HIIT, may induce significant improvements in VO2max and cardiometabolic risk markers.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is emerging as an effective and time-efficient exercise strategy for health promotion. However, most HIIT studies are conducted in laboratory settings and evidence regarding the efficacy of time-efficient "low-volume" HIIT is based mainly on demanding "all-out" protocols. Thus, the aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility and efficacy of two low-volume (≤ 30 min time-effort/week), non-all-out HIIT protocols, performed 2 ×/week over 8 weeks in a community-based fitness centre. METHODS: Thirty-four sedentary men and women were randomised to either 2 × 4-min HIIT (2 × 4-HIIT) or 5 × 1-min HIIT (5 × 1-HIIT) at 85-95% maximal heart rate (HRmax), or an active control group performing moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT, 76 min/week) at 65-75% HRmax. RESULTS: The exercise protocols were well tolerated and no adverse events occurred. 2 × 4-HIIT and 5 × 1-HIIT exhibited lower dropout rates (17 and 8 vs. 30%) than MICT. All training modes improved VO2max (2 × 4-HIIT: + 20%, P < 0.01; 5 × 1-HIIT: + 27%, P < 0.001; MICT: + 16%, P < 0.05), but the HIIT protocols required 60% less time commitment. Both HIIT protocols and MICT had positive impact on cholesterol profiles. Only 5 × 1-HIIT significantly improved waist circumference (P < 0.05) and subjective work ability (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that low-volume HIIT can be feasibly implemented in a community-based setting. Moreover, our data suggest that practical (non-all-out) HIIT that requires as little as 30 min/week, either performed as 2 × 4-HIIT or 5 × 1-HIIT, may induce significant improvements in VO2max and cardiometabolic risk markers.
Authors: Nic Martinez; Marcus W Kilpatrick; Kristen Salomon; Mary E Jung; Jonathan P Little Journal: J Sport Exerc Psychol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.016
Authors: David C Nieman; Beibei Luo; Didier Dréau; Dru A Henson; R Andrew Shanely; Dustin Dew; Mary Pat Meaney Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Todd A Astorino; Matthew M Schubert; Elyse Palumbo; Douglas Stirling; David W McMillan; Rachael Gallant; Ruthie Dewoskin Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Johanna L Johnson; Cris A Slentz; Joseph A Houmard; Gregory P Samsa; Brian D Duscha; Lori B Aiken; Jennifer S McCartney; Charles J Tanner; William E Kraus Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-10-29 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M E Jung; S R Locke; J E Bourne; M R Beauchamp; T Lee; J Singer; M MacPherson; J Barry; C Jones; J P Little Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Nida Mugler; Hansjörg Baurecht; Kevin Lam; Michael Leitzmann; Carmen Jochem Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Dejan Reljic; Annalena Eichhorn; Hans J Herrmann; Markus F Neurath; Yurdagül Zopf Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 4.614