Saeedeh Shadmehri1, Nasibeh Kazemi2, Fatemeh Zahra Heydari3. 1. Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Yadegar-e-Imam Khomeini (RAH) Shahr-e Ray Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran. 3. Department of Exercise Physiology, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran.
Abstract
Background: Sedentary lifestyle can cause the deterioration of respiratory indices. The interventions, such as physical activity programs, might prevent such deterioration. This study aimed to compare the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and aerobic training on the respiratory volumes in female students. Materials and Methods: In this semi-experimental study, 30 healthy inactive volunteer female students (age: 26.3±4.30 years; height: 1.63±8.36 m; body mass index: 20-28 kg/m2) were divided randomly into two HIIT and aerobic training groups. The aerobic training consisted of three sessions of 50-60 minutes of exercise with an intensity of 70-85% of the maximum heart rate per week for 4 weeks. Additionally, the HIIT program included six repetitions of 4 minutes with an intensity of 90-95% of maximum heart rate for 4 weeks on a treadmill. Spirometry tests were performed to determine lung function before and after the training protocols. The data were analyzed by the independent and dependent t-tests at p < 0.05. Results: The results showed that aerobic training significantly improved the forced expiratory volume in one second (P=0.045), forced expiratory flow (FEF) within 25-75% (P=0.002), and peak expiratory flow (P=0.003); however, HIIT did not have a significant effect on these indicators. There was no significant difference between the two types of training in any of the indicators except for FEF within 25-75%. Conclusion: According to the study results, aerobic training might be more effective in the improvement of pulmonary parameters than intense training. Copyright
Background: Sedentary lifestyle can cause the deterioration of respiratory indices. The interventions, such as physical activity programs, might prevent such deterioration. This study aimed to compare the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and aerobic training on the respiratory volumes in female students. Materials and Methods: In this semi-experimental study, 30 healthy inactive volunteer female students (age: 26.3±4.30 years; height: 1.63±8.36 m; body mass index: 20-28 kg/m2) were divided randomly into two HIIT and aerobic training groups. The aerobic training consisted of three sessions of 50-60 minutes of exercise with an intensity of 70-85% of the maximum heart rate per week for 4 weeks. Additionally, the HIIT program included six repetitions of 4 minutes with an intensity of 90-95% of maximum heart rate for 4 weeks on a treadmill. Spirometry tests were performed to determine lung function before and after the training protocols. The data were analyzed by the independent and dependent t-tests at p < 0.05. Results: The results showed that aerobic training significantly improved the forced expiratory volume in one second (P=0.045), forced expiratory flow (FEF) within 25-75% (P=0.002), and peak expiratory flow (P=0.003); however, HIIT did not have a significant effect on these indicators. There was no significant difference between the two types of training in any of the indicators except for FEF within 25-75%. Conclusion: According to the study results, aerobic training might be more effective in the improvement of pulmonary parameters than intense training. Copyright
Authors: Jordan A Guenette; Jordan S Querido; Neil D Eves; Romeo Chua; A William Sheel Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Leighton Chan; Lisa M K Chin; Michelle Kennedy; Joshua G Woolstenhulme; Steven D Nathan; Ali A Weinstein; Gerilynn Connors; Nargues A Weir; Bart Drinkard; James Lamberti; Randall E Keyser Journal: Chest Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Brenda W Campbell Jenkins; Daniel F Sarpong; Clifton Addison; Monique S White; Demarc A Hickson; Wendy White; Cecil Burchfiel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.390