Whole-Body High-Intensity Interval Training Induce Similar Cardiorespiratory Adaptations Compared With Traditional High-Intensity Interval Training and Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Healthy Men

Abstract

Low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols that use the body weight as resistance could be an interesting and inexpensive alternative to traditional ergometer-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT-T) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). Therefore, our aim was to compare the effects of 16 weeks of whole-body HIIT (HIIT-WB), HIIT-T, and MICT on maximal oxygen uptake (V̇o2max), second ventilatory threshold (VT2), and running economy (RE) outcomes. Fifty-five healthy men (23.7 ± 0.7 years, 1.79 ± 0.01 m, 78.5 ± 1.7 kg) were randomized into 3 training groups (HIIT-T = 17; HIIT-WB = 19; MICT = 19) for 16 weeks (3× per week). The HIIT-T group performed eight 20-second bouts at 130% of the velocity associated to V̇o2max (vV̇o2max) interspersed by 10-second passive recovery on a treadmill, whereas HIIT-WB group performed the same protocol but used calisthenics exercises at an all-out intensity instead of treadmill running. Finally, MICT group exercised for 30 minutes at 90–95% of the heart rate (HR) associated to VT2. After the intervention, all groups improved V̇o2max, vV̇o2max, time to exhaustion (Tmax), VT2, velocity associated with VT2 (vVT2), and time to reach VT2 (tVT2) significantly (p < 0.05). Moreover, Tmax, vVT2, and tVT2 were greater after HIIT-T compared with HIIT-WB (p < 0.05), whereas oxygen uptake increased and HR decreased during the RE test in all groups (p < 0.05). Our results demonstrate that HIIT-WB can be as effective as traditional HIIT while also being time-efficient compared with MICT to improve health-related outcomes after 16 weeks of training. However, HIIT-T and MICT seem preferable to enhance performance-related outcomes compared with HIIT-WB.