A multi-center comparison of VO2 peak trainability between interval training and moderate intensity continuous training

Authors

Camilla J. Williams
Brendon J. Gurd
Jacob T. Bonafiglia
Sarah Voisin
Zhixiu Li
Nicholas Harvey
Ilaria Croci
Jenna L. Taylor
Trishan Gajanand
Joyce S. Ramos
Robert G. Fassett
Jonathan P. Little
Monique E. Francois
Christopher M. Hearon
Satyam Sarma
Sylvan L. J. E. Janssen
Emeline M. Van Craenenbroeck
Paul Beckers
Véronique A. Cornelissen
Nele Pattyn
Erin J. Howden
Shelley E. Keating
Anja Bye
Dorthe Stensvold
Ulrik Wisloff
Ioannis Papadimitriou
Xu Yan
David J. Bishop, Edith Cowan UniversityFollow
Nir Eynon
Jeff S. Coombes

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Frontiers in Physiology

ISSN

1664-042X

Volume

10

First Page

19

Last Page

19

PubMed ID

30804794

Publisher

Frontiers Media S.A.

School

School of Medical and Health Sciences

RAS ID

31293

Grant Number

ARC Number : DE140100864

Grant Link

http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE140100864

Comments

Williams, C. J., Gurd, B. J., Bonafiglia, J. T., Voisin, S., Li, Z., Harvey, N., ... Coombes, J. S. (2019). A multi-center comparison of VO2peak trainability between interval training and moderate intensity continuous training. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, Article 19. Available here

Abstract

There is heterogeneity in the observed VO_2peak response to similar exercise training, and different exercise approaches produce variable degrees of exercise response (trainability). The aim of this study was to combine data from different laboratories to compare VO_2peak trainability between various volumes of interval training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training (MICT). For interval training, volumes were classified by the duration of total interval time. High-volume High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) included studies that had participants complete more than 15 min of high intensity efforts per session. Low-volume HIIT/Sprint Interval Training (SIT) included studies using less than 15 min of high intensity efforts per session. In total, 677 participants across 18 aerobic exercise training interventions from eight different universities in five countries were included in the analysis. Participants had completed 3 weeks or more of either high-volume HIIT (n = 299), low-volume HIIT/SIT (n = 116), or MICT (n = 262) and were predominately men (n = 495) with a mix of healthy, elderly and clinical populations. Each training intervention improved mean VO_2peak at the group level (P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, high-volume HIIT had a significantly greater (P < 0.05) absolute VO_2peak increase (0.29 L/min) compared to MICT (0.20 L/min) and low-volume HIIT/SIT (0.18 L/min). Adjusted relative VO_2peak increase was also significantly greater (P < 0.01) in high-volume HIIT (3.3 ml/kg/min) than MICT (2.4 ml/kg/min) and insignificantly greater (P = 0.09) than low-volume HIIT/SIT (2.5 mL/kg/min). Based on a high threshold for a likely response (technical error of measurement plus the minimal clinically important difference), high-volume HIIT had significantly more (P < 0.01) likely responders (31%) compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT (16%) and MICT (21%). Covariates such as age, sex, the individual study, population group, sessions per week, study duration and the average between pre and post VO_2peak explained only 17.3% of the variance in VO_2peak trainability. In conclusion, high-volume HIIT had more likely responders to improvements in VO_2peak compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT and MICT.

DOI

10.3389/fphys.2019.00019

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.