The Effect of Low-Volume High-Intensity Interval Training on Body Composition and Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Systemati
- PDF / 2,070,057 Bytes
- 35 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 65 Downloads / 165 Views
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
The Effect of Low‑Volume High‑Intensity Interval Training on Body Composition and Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis Rachelle N. Sultana1,2,3 · Angelo Sabag1,2,3 · Shelley E. Keating4 · Nathan A. Johnson1,2,3
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
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 betweengroup (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 100% of maximal work rate/V̇ O2max) interspersed with recovery periods. These protocols generally require a relatively large anaerobic contribution due to employing short bursts (8–30 s) of supramaximal efforts. Thus, maximal all-out SIT was considered as a form of high-intensity training at the highest end of the intensity spectrum [58, 59]. Although there is no accepted definition of ‘low-volume’ HIIT, in the present review we considered HIIT protocols to be low volume if the total amount of exercise performed during training was ≤ 500 MET-min/week. This cut-off equates to the lowest volume of exercise recommended for health benefits [60, 61]. Training volume was calculated for HIIT protocols by converting the weekly relative intensity (percentage of V̇ O2max, peak rate of oxygen consumption [ V̇ O2peak], heart rate reserv
Data Loading...
