To investigate the acute cardiometabolic responses of a 7-minute bodyweight resistance exercise circuit (HICE) compared to a 7-minute high intensity interval training cycle protocol (HIIE). METHODS:Twelve apparently healthy and active young adults were enrolled in a randomized crossover study (HICE vs HIIE). The 12 HICE exercises used a 30:5 second exercise to rest ratio, followed by a 3-minute cool-down and was replicated in the HIIE cycle protocol. Following each protocol, subjects were seated for the next hour. Measurements included blood pressure (BP) heart rate, blood glucose and triglycerides, taken prior to exercise, immediately after, 15, 30, 45, and 60-minutes post-exercise. Blood glucose and triglycerides were only taken, immediately after and at 60-minutes. General mixed linear modeling was used to analyze the data and Cohen's d was calculated for effect size. Post hoc analysis of individual time points used Bonferroni adjustment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall systolic BP between HIIE and HICE (p = 0.168). However, there was a significant difference in overall diastolic BP resulting a higher response in HIIE (p = 0.002). Immediately after exercise exhibited significant (p = 0.001) and trending, respectfully, higher values in diastolic BP for HIIE. The overall post-exercise heart rate was lower for HIIE vs HICE (p < 0.001). Blood glucose and Triglycerides had no overall difference between the two protocols (p = 0.104). CONCLUSION: The HICE protocol had a similar cardiometabolic response post-exercise to HIIE but did have a reduction in diastolic BP post-exercise. However, post-exercise heart rate was higher.
RCT Entities:
To investigate the acute cardiometabolic responses of a 7-minute bodyweight resistance exercise circuit (HICE) compared to a 7-minute high intensity interval training cycle protocol (HIIE). METHODS: Twelve apparently healthy and active young adults were enrolled in a randomized crossover study (HICE vs HIIE). The 12 HICE exercises used a 30:5 second exercise to rest ratio, followed by a 3-minute cool-down and was replicated in the HIIE cycle protocol. Following each protocol, subjects were seated for the next hour. Measurements included blood pressure (BP) heart rate, blood glucose and triglycerides, taken prior to exercise, immediately after, 15, 30, 45, and 60-minutes post-exercise. Blood glucose and triglycerides were only taken, immediately after and at 60-minutes. General mixed linear modeling was used to analyze the data and Cohen's d was calculated for effect size. Post hoc analysis of individual time points used Bonferroni adjustment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall systolic BP between HIIE and HICE (p = 0.168). However, there was a significant difference in overall diastolic BP resulting a higher response in HIIE (p = 0.002). Immediately after exercise exhibited significant (p = 0.001) and trending, respectfully, higher values in diastolic BP for HIIE. The overall post-exercise heart rate was lower for HIIE vs HICE (p < 0.001). Blood glucose and Triglycerides had no overall difference between the two protocols (p = 0.104). CONCLUSION: The HICE protocol had a similar cardiometabolic response post-exercise to HIIE but did have a reduction in diastolic BP post-exercise. However, post-exercise heart rate was higher.
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Wayne Rosamond; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Margaux A Guidry; Bruce E Blanchard; Paul D Thompson; Carl M Maresh; Richard L Seip; Amy L Taylor; Linda S Pescatello Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Adrian D Elliott; Kanchani Rajopadhyaya; David J Bentley; John F Beltrame; Edoardo C Aromataris Journal: Heart Lung Circ Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 2.975