Kyle Graham1, Ceren Yarar-Fisher2, Jia Li2, Kevin M McCully3, James H Rimmer4, Danille Powell2, C Scott Bickel5, Gordon Fisher1. 1. Department of Human Studies, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 3. Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 4. UAB/Lakeshore Foundation Research Collaborative, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Department of Physical Therapy, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
Background: Recent studies in nondisabled individuals have demonstrated that low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) can improve cardiometabolic health similar to moderate-intensity training (MIT) despite requiring 20% of the overall time commitment. To date, there have been no studies assessing the effects of HIIT for improving cardiometabolic health in individuals with SCI. Objectives: The primary purpose of this pilot study was to compare the effects of 6 weeks of low-volume HIIT vs MIT using arm crank ergometer exercise to improve body composition, cardiovascular fitness, glucose tolerance, blood lipids, and blood pressure in a cohort of individuals with longstanding SCI. Methods: Participants were randomized to 6 weeks of HIIT or MIT arm crank exercise training. Aerobic capacity, muscular strength, blood lipids, glucose tolerance, blood pressure, and body composition were assessed at baseline and 6 weeks post training. Results: Seven individuals (6 male, 1 female; n = 3 in MIT and n = 4 in HIIT; mean age 51.3 ± 10.5 years) with longstanding SCI completed the study. The preliminary findings from this pilot study demonstrated that individuals with SCI randomized to either 6 weeks of HIIT or MIT displayed improvements in (a) insulin sensitivity, (b) cardiovascular fitness, and (c) muscular strength (p < .05). However, MIT led to greater improvements in arm fat percent and chest press strength compared to HIIT (p < .05). Conclusion: No differences between MIT and HIIT were observed. Both conditions led to improvements in insulin sensitivity, aerobic capacity, muscle strength, and blood lipids in individuals with SCI. Future larger cohort studies are needed to determine if the shorter amount of time required from HIIT is preferable to current MIT exercise recommendations.
Background: Recent studies in nondisabled individuals have demonstrated that low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) can improve cardiometabolic health similar to moderate-intensity training (MIT) despite requiring 20% of the overall time commitment. To date, there have been no studies assessing the effects of HIIT for improving cardiometabolic health in individuals with SCI. Objectives: The primary purpose of this pilot study was to compare the effects of 6 weeks of low-volume HIIT vs MIT using arm crank ergometer exercise to improve body composition, cardiovascular fitness, glucose tolerance, blood lipids, and blood pressure in a cohort of individuals with longstanding SCI. Methods: Participants were randomized to 6 weeks of HIIT or MIT arm crank exercise training. Aerobic capacity, muscular strength, blood lipids, glucose tolerance, blood pressure, and body composition were assessed at baseline and 6 weeks post training. Results: Seven individuals (6 male, 1 female; n = 3 in MIT and n = 4 in HIIT; mean age 51.3 ± 10.5 years) with longstanding SCI completed the study. The preliminary findings from this pilot study demonstrated that individuals with SCI randomized to either 6 weeks of HIIT or MIT displayed improvements in (a) insulin sensitivity, (b) cardiovascular fitness, and (c) muscular strength (p < .05). However, MIT led to greater improvements in arm fat percent and chest press strength compared to HIIT (p < .05). Conclusion: No differences between MIT and HIIT were observed. Both conditions led to improvements in insulin sensitivity, aerobic capacity, muscle strength, and blood lipids in individuals with SCI. Future larger cohort studies are needed to determine if the shorter amount of time required from HIIT is preferable to current MIT exercise recommendations.
Authors: A Katz; S S Nambi; K Mather; A D Baron; D A Follmann; G Sullivan; M J Quon Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Martin J Gibala; Jonathan P Little; Martin van Essen; Geoffrey P Wilkin; Kirsten A Burgomaster; Adeel Safdar; Sandeep Raha; Mark A Tarnopolsky Journal: J Physiol Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Darren E R Warburton; Donald C McKenzie; Mark J Haykowsky; Arlana Taylor; Paula Shoemaker; Andrew P Ignaszewski; Sammy Y Chan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: J Y Jeon; C B Weiss; R D Steadward; E Ryan; R S Burnham; G Bell; P Chilibeck; G D Wheeler Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Kirsten A Burgomaster; Krista R Howarth; Stuart M Phillips; Mark Rakobowchuk; Maureen J Macdonald; Sean L McGee; Martin J Gibala Journal: J Physiol Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Rungsinee Amanda Liusuwan; Lana M Widman; Richard Ted Abresch; Dennis M Styne; Craig M McDonald Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Matthew T Farrow; Jennifer L Maher; Tom E Nightingale; Dylan Thompson; James L J Bilzon Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Jacob Adams; Byron Lai; James Rimmer; Danielle Powell; Ceren Yarar-Fisher; Robert A Oster; Gordon Fisher Journal: Trials Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 2.728