AUTHOR=Williams Camilla J. , Gurd Brendon J. , Bonafiglia Jacob T. , Voisin Sarah , Li Zhixiu , Harvey Nicholas , Croci Ilaria , Taylor Jenna L. , Gajanand Trishan , Ramos Joyce S. , Fassett Robert G. , Little Jonathan P. , Francois Monique E. , Hearon Christopher M. , Sarma Satyam , Janssen Sylvan L.J.E. , Van Craenenbroeck Emeline M. , Beckers Paul , Cornelissen Véronique A. , Pattyn Nele , Howden Erin J. , Keating Shelley E. , Bye Anja , Stensvold Dorthe , Wisloff Ulrik , Papadimitriou Ioannis , Yan Xu , Bishop David J. , Eynon Nir , Coombes Jeff S. TITLE=A Multi-Center Comparison of O2peak Trainability Between Interval Training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training JOURNAL=Frontiers in Physiology VOLUME=10 YEAR=2019 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00019 DOI=10.3389/fphys.2019.00019 ISSN=1664-042X ABSTRACT=

There is heterogeneity in the observed O2peak 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 O2peak 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 O2peak at the group level (P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, high-volume HIIT had a significantly greater (P < 0.05) absolute O2peak increase (0.29 L/min) compared to MICT (0.20 L/min) and low-volume HIIT/SIT (0.18 L/min). Adjusted relative O2peak 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 O2peak explained only 17.3% of the variance in O2peak trainability. In conclusion, high-volume HIIT had more likely responders to improvements in O2peak compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT and MICT.