Personalized Moderate-Intensity Exercise Training Combined with High-Intensity Interval Training Enhances Training Responsiveness.

Bryant R Byrd,Shawn M Keeling,Jamie Keith,Lance C Dalleck,Ryan M Weatherwax,Joyce S Ramos,Paul B Nolan

doi:10.3390/ijerph16122088

Abstract

This study sought to determine if personalized moderate-intensity continuous exercise training (MICT) combined with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) was more effective at improving comprehensive training responsiveness than MICT alone. Apparently healthy, but physically inactive men and women (n = 54) were randomized to a non-exercise control group or one of two 13-week exercise training groups: (1) a personalized MICT + HIIT aerobic and resistance training program based on the American Council on Exercise guidelines, or (2) a standardized MICT aerobic and resistance training program designed according to current American College of Sports Medicine guidelines. Mean changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and Metabolic (MetS) z-score in the personalized MICT + HIIT group were more favorable (p < 0.05) when compared to both the standardized MICT and control groups. Additionally, on the individual level, there were positive improvements in VO2max (Δ > 4.9%) and MetS z-score (Δ ≤ −0.48) in 100% (16/16) of participants in the personalized MICT + HIIT group. In the present study, a personalized exercise prescription combining MICT + HIIT in conjunction with resistance training elicited greater improvements in VO2max, MetS z-score reductions, and diminished inter-individual variation in VO2max and cardiometabolic training responses when compared to standardized MICT.

Highlights

It is well established that a low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) level is a risk factor for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality [1]
The purpose of this study was to determine if personalized moderate-intensity continuous exercise training (MICT) combined with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) would be more effective at improving training responsiveness than MICT alone
HIITversus versus standardized standardized MICT, both exercise interventions combined with a resistance training component prescribed according to recommended guidelines by two world leading professional organizations in the field of exercise science (ACSM or American Council on Exercise (ACE))

Summary

Introduction

It is well established that a low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) level is a risk factor for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality [1]. Regular aerobic exercise training following standardized guidelines has been demonstrated to be an effective tool in improving CRF [2]. There is considerable individual variability in training adaptations including the so-termed ‘non-responders’ and, in some instances, ‘adverse responders’ [3,4]. This variability in training responsiveness is not well understood and may be attributable to various factors including the absence of set definitions in the literature for responders/non-responders and a one size fits all approach to exercise prescription [5]. Public Health 2019, 16, 2088; doi:10.3390/ijerph16122088 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion