Michael A Rosenblat1,2, Andrew S Perrotta3, Scott G Thomas4,5. 1. Department of Exercise Science, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. michael@evidencebasedcoaching.ca. 2. Training and Performance Laboratory, Goldring Centre for High Performance Sport, Department of Exercise Science, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. michael@evidencebasedcoaching.ca. 3. Department of Kinesiology, Langara College, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. Department of Exercise Science, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Training and Performance Laboratory, Goldring Centre for High Performance Sport, Department of Exercise Science, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two forms of interval training commonly discussed in the literature are high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and sprint interval training (SIT). HIIT consists of repeated bouts of exercise that occur at a power output or velocity between the second ventilatory threshold and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max). SIT is performed at a power output or velocity above those associated with VO2max. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to systematically review published randomized and pair-matched trials to determine which mode of interval training, HIIT versus SIT, leads to a greater improvement in TT performance in active and trained individuals. The second objective of this review is to perform a subgroup analysis to determine if there is a distinction between HIIT programs that differ in work-bout duration. DATA SOURCES: SPORTDiscus (1800-present) and Medline with Full Text (1946-present) were used to conduct a systematic literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected for the review if they met the following criteria: (1) individuals (males and females) who were considered at least moderately trained (~ 3-h per week of activity) as specified by the authors of the included studies; (2) between the ages of 18 and 45 years; (3) randomized or pair-matched trials that included a HIIT and a SIT group; (4) provided detailed information about the interval training program; (5) were at least 2 weeks in duration; (6) included a TT test that required participants to complete a set distance. RESULTS: A total of 6 articles met the inclusion criteria for the subjective and objective analysis. The pooled analysis was based on a random-effects model. There was no difference in the change in TT performance when comparing all HIIT versus SIT (0.9%; 90% CI - 1.2-1.9%, p = 0.18). However, subgroup analysis based on duration of work interval indicated a 2% greater improvement in TT performance following long-HIIT (≥ 4 min) when compared to SIT. There was no difference in change in VO2max/peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) between groups. There was a moderate effect (ES = 0.70) in favor of HIIT over SIT in maximal aerobic power (MAP) or maximal aerobic velocity (MAV). CONCLUSION: The results of the meta-analysis indicate that long-HIIT may be the optimal form of interval training to augment TT performance. Additional research that directly compares HIIT exercise differing in work-bout duration would strengthen these results and provide further insight into the mechanisms behind the observed benefits of long-HIIT.
BACKGROUND: Two forms of interval training commonly discussed in the literature are high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and sprint interval training (SIT). HIIT consists of repeated bouts of exercise that occur at a power output or velocity between the second ventilatory threshold and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max). SIT is performed at a power output or velocity above those associated with VO2max. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to systematically review published randomized and pair-matched trials to determine which mode of interval training, HIIT versus SIT, leads to a greater improvement in TT performance in active and trained individuals. The second objective of this review is to perform a subgroup analysis to determine if there is a distinction between HIIT programs that differ in work-bout duration. DATA SOURCES: SPORTDiscus (1800-present) and Medline with Full Text (1946-present) were used to conduct a systematic literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected for the review if they met the following criteria: (1) individuals (males and females) who were considered at least moderately trained (~ 3-h per week of activity) as specified by the authors of the included studies; (2) between the ages of 18 and 45 years; (3) randomized or pair-matched trials that included a HIIT and a SIT group; (4) provided detailed information about the interval training program; (5) were at least 2 weeks in duration; (6) included a TT test that required participants to complete a set distance. RESULTS: A total of 6 articles met the inclusion criteria for the subjective and objective analysis. The pooled analysis was based on a random-effects model. There was no difference in the change in TT performance when comparing all HIIT versus SIT (0.9%; 90% CI - 1.2-1.9%, p = 0.18). However, subgroup analysis based on duration of work interval indicated a 2% greater improvement in TT performance following long-HIIT (≥ 4 min) when compared to SIT. There was no difference in change in VO2max/peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) between groups. There was a moderate effect (ES = 0.70) in favor of HIIT over SIT in maximal aerobic power (MAP) or maximal aerobic velocity (MAV). CONCLUSION: The results of the meta-analysis indicate that long-HIIT may be the optimal form of interval training to augment TT performance. Additional research that directly compares HIIT exercise differing in work-bout duration would strengthen these results and provide further insight into the mechanisms behind the observed benefits of long-HIIT.
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: Silas Gabriel de Oliveira-Nunes; Alex Castro; Amanda Veiga Sardeli; Claudia Regina Cavaglieri; Mara Patricia Traina Chacon-Mikahil Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-12 Impact factor: 3.390