Alternating high-intensity interval training and continuous training is efficacious in improving cardiometabolic health in obese middle-aged men

Eric Tsz-Chun Poon; Parco Ming-Fai Siu; Waris Wongpipit; Martin Gibala; Stephen Heung-Sang Wong

doi:10.1016/j.jesf.2021.11.003

Alternating high-intensity interval training and continuous training is efficacious in improving cardiometabolic health in obese middle-aged men

J Exerc Sci Fit. 2022 Jan;20(1):40-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jesf.2021.11.003. Epub 2021 Nov 23.

Authors

Eric Tsz-Chun Poon¹, Parco Ming-Fai Siu², Waris Wongpipit^{1

3}, Martin Gibala⁴, Stephen Heung-Sang Wong¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
² Division of Kinesiology, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
³ Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
⁴ Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

Background: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) or moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) alone has been shown to improve metabolic health, but the effects of alternating the two training approaches as often practiced in real life remained unclear.

Purpose: To examine the effects of HIIT or MICT alone or alternating HIIT-MICT on cardiometabolic responses in inactive obese middle-aged men.

Methods: Forty-two participants (age: 42 ± 5 y; BMI: 26.3 ± 2.1 kg m^-2) were randomly assigned to four groups: HIIT (12 x 1-min running bouts at 80-90% HR_max interspersed with 1-min active recovery at 50% HR_max), MICT (40-min brisk walk at 65-70% HR_max), alternating HIIT-MICT or a non-exercise control group (CON). Exercise sessions were conducted three times per week for 16 weeks. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max), body composition (by bioelectrical impedance analysis), blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and lipid profile were assessed at baseline and after the 16-week intervention. Enjoyment and self-efficacy were also assessed at the end of intervention.

Results: All exercise groups showed a similar VO_2max increase of ∼15% (HIIT: 34.3 ± 4.4 vs 39.1 ± 5.4; MICT: 34.9 ± 5.0 vs 39.4 ± 7.2; and alternating HIIT-MICT: 34.4 ± 5.0 vs 40.3 ± 4.6 mL kg^-1min^-1) compared to baseline and CON (all p < 0.05). Weight, BMI, % fat and waist circumference also showed similar reductions in all exercise groups compared to baseline and CON (all p < 0.05). No significant group difference was observed for all blood markers. Compared to baseline, total cholesterol decreased after HIIT-MICT, while HIIT significantly decreased fasting insulin level and improved insulin resistance (p < 0.05). Enjoyment, self-efficacy and adherence were similar among all exercise groups.

Conclusion: HIIT or MICT alone or alternating HIIT-MICT similarly improve cardiovascular fitness and body composition in obese middle-aged men despite differences in total training volume and time commitment.

Keywords: Continuous training; HIIT; Interval exercise; Public health; Weight management.