Rachelle N Sultana1,2,3, Angelo Sabag4,5,6, Shelley E Keating7, Nathan A Johnson8,9,10. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia. rachelle.sultana@sydney.edu.au. 2. Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. rachelle.sultana@sydney.edu.au. 3. Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. rachelle.sultana@sydney.edu.au. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. 7. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. 8. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia. nathan.johnson@sydney.edu.au. 9. Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. nathan.johnson@sydney.edu.au. 10. Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. nathan.johnson@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence for the efficacy of low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for the modulation of body composition is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of low-volume HIIT versus a non-exercising control and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. We evaluated the impact of low-volume HIIT (HIIT interventions where the total amount of exercise performed during training was ≤ 500 metabolic equivalent minutes per week [MET-min/week]) compared to a non-exercising control and MICT. METHODS: A database search was conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus and Scopus from the earliest record to June 2019 for studies (randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials) with exercise training interventions with a minimum 4-week duration. Meta-analyses were conducted for between-group (low-volume HIIT vs. non-exercising control and low-volume HIIT vs. MICT) comparisons for change in total body fat mass (kg), body fat percentage (%), lean body mass (kg) and cardiorespiratory fitness. RESULTS: From 11,485 relevant records, 47 studies were included. No difference was found between low-volume HIIT and a non-exercising control on total body fat mass (kg) (effect size [ES]: - 0.129, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.468 to 0.210; p = 0.455), body fat (%) (ES: - 0.063, 95% CI - 0.383 to 0.257; p = 0.700) and lean body mass (kg) (ES: 0.050, 95% CI - 0.250 to 0.351; p = 0.744), or between low-volume HIIT and MICT on total body fat mass (kg) (ES: - 0.021, 95% CI - 0.272 to 0.231; p = 0.872), body fat (%) (ES: 0.005, 95% CI - 0.294 to 0.304; p = 0.974) and lean body mass (kg) (ES: 0.030, 95% CI - 0.167 to 0.266; p = 0.768). However, low-volume HIIT significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness compared with a non-exercising control (p < 0.001) and MICT (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that low-volume HIIT is inefficient for the modulation of total body fat mass or total body fat percentage in comparison with a non-exercise control and MICT. A novel finding of our meta-analysis was that there appears to be no significant effect of low-volume HIIT on lean body mass when compared with a non-exercising control, and while most studies tended to favour improvement in lean body mass with low-volume HIIT versus MICT, this was not significant. However, despite its lower training volume, low-volume HIIT induces greater improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness than a non-exercising control and MICT in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. Low-volume HIIT, therefore, appears to be a time-efficient treatment for increasing fitness, but not for the improvement of body composition.
BACKGROUND: Evidence for the efficacy of low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for the modulation of body composition is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of low-volume HIIT versus a non-exercising control and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. We evaluated the impact of low-volume HIIT (HIIT interventions where the total amount of exercise performed during training was ≤ 500 metabolic equivalent minutes per week [MET-min/week]) compared to a non-exercising control and MICT. METHODS: A database search was conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus and Scopus from the earliest record to June 2019 for studies (randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials) with exercise training interventions with a minimum 4-week duration. Meta-analyses were conducted for between-group (low-volume HIIT vs. non-exercising control and low-volume HIIT vs. MICT) comparisons for change in total body fat mass (kg), body fat percentage (%), lean body mass (kg) and cardiorespiratory fitness. RESULTS: From 11,485 relevant records, 47 studies were included. No difference was found between low-volume HIIT and a non-exercising control on total body fat mass (kg) (effect size [ES]: - 0.129, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.468 to 0.210; p = 0.455), body fat (%) (ES: - 0.063, 95% CI - 0.383 to 0.257; p = 0.700) and lean body mass (kg) (ES: 0.050, 95% CI - 0.250 to 0.351; p = 0.744), or between low-volume HIIT and MICT on total body fat mass (kg) (ES: - 0.021, 95% CI - 0.272 to 0.231; p = 0.872), body fat (%) (ES: 0.005, 95% CI - 0.294 to 0.304; p = 0.974) and lean body mass (kg) (ES: 0.030, 95% CI - 0.167 to 0.266; p = 0.768). However, low-volume HIIT significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness compared with a non-exercising control (p < 0.001) and MICT (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that low-volume HIIT is inefficient for the modulation of total body fat mass or total body fat percentage in comparison with a non-exercise control and MICT. A novel finding of our meta-analysis was that there appears to be no significant effect of low-volume HIIT on lean body mass when compared with a non-exercising control, and while most studies tended to favour improvement in lean body mass with low-volume HIIT versus MICT, this was not significant. However, despite its lower training volume, low-volume HIIT induces greater improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness than a non-exercising control and MICT in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. Low-volume HIIT, therefore, appears to be a time-efficient treatment for increasing fitness, but not for the improvement of body composition.
Authors: Jean-Pierre Després; Isabelle Lemieux; Jean Bergeron; Philippe Pibarot; Patrick Mathieu; Eric Larose; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Olivier F Bertrand; Paul Poirier Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Krzystof Mazurek; Krzysztof Krawczyk; Piotr Zmijewski; Henryk Norkowski; Anna Czajkowska Journal: Ann Agric Environ Med Date: 2014 Impact factor: 1.447
Authors: Romeo B Batacan; Mitch J Duncan; Vincent J Dalbo; Patrick S Tucker; Andrew S Fenning Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Kirsten A Burgomaster; Naomi M Cermak; Stuart M Phillips; Carley R Benton; Arend Bonen; Martin J Gibala Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Genevieve A Wilson; Gerard T Wilkins; Jim D Cotter; Regis R Lamberts; Sudish Lal; James C Baldi Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: David B Bartlett; Sam O Shepherd; Oliver J Wilson; Ahmed M Adlan; Anton J M Wagenmakers; Christopher S Shaw; Janet M Lord Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 6.543
Authors: Mary E Jung; Jessica E Bourne; Mark R Beauchamp; Emily Robinson; Jonathan P Little Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 4.011
Authors: Matthew B Cooke; William Deasy; Elya J Ritenis; Robin A Wilson; Christos G Stathis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Muhammed Mustafa Atakan; Yanchun Li; Şükran Nazan Koşar; Hüseyin Hüsrev Turnagöl; Xu Yan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Haitham Jahrami; Ahmed S BaHammam; Brendon Stubbs; Ali Sabah; Zahra Saif; Nicola Luigi Bragazzi; Michael V Vitiello Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 2.816