Journal article 500 views 32 downloads
Changes in aerobic capacity and glycaemic control in response to reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT) are not different between sedentary men and women
Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, Volume: 41, Issue: 11, Pages: 1117 - 1123
Swansea University Author: Richard Metcalfe
PDF | Accepted ManuscriptDownload (430.47KB)
Previously it has been reported that reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT; total training time of 3 × 10 min per week) improves maximal aerobic capacity in both sedentary men and women, but improves insulin sensitivity in men only. The aim of the present study was to determine wh...
|Published in:||Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism|
Check full text
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Previously it has been reported that reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT; total training time of 3 × 10 min per week) improves maximal aerobic capacity in both sedentary men and women, but improves insulin sensitivity in men only. The aim of the present study was to determine whether there is a true sex difference in response to REHIT, or that these findings can be explained by the large interindividual variability in response inherent to all exercise training. Thirty-five sedentary participants (18 women; mean ± SD age for men and women, respectively: age, 33 ± 9 and 36 ± 9 years; body mass index, 25.1 ± 2.1 and 24.1 ± 3.5 kg·m−2; maximal aerobic capacity, 38.6 ± 8.3 and 31.6 ± 4.6 mL·kg−1·min−1) completed a 6-week REHIT programme consisting of eighteen 10-min unloaded cycling sessions with 1 (first session) or 2 (all other sessions) “all-out” 10–20-s sprints against a resistance of 5% of body mass. Maximal aerobic capacity and oral glucose tolerance test-derived insulin sensitivity were determined before and after training. REHIT was associated with an increase in maximal aerobic capacity (2.54 ± 0.65 vs. 2.78 ± 0.68 L·min−1, main effect of time: p < 0.01), a trend toward reduced plasma insulin area-under-the-curve (AUC; 6.7 ± 4.8 vs. 6.1 ± 4.0 IU·min−1·mL−1, p = 0.096), but no significant change in plasma glucose AUC or the Cederholm index of insulin sensitivity. Substantial interindividual variability in response to REHIT was observed for all variables, but there was no significant effect of sex. In conclusion, REHIT improves the key health marker of aerobic capacity within a minimal total training time-commitment. There is large interindividual variability in responses to REHIT, but sex differences in the responses are not apparent.
HIT, V̇O2max, insulin sensitivity, sex differences
College of Engineering