The literature suggests that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) to improve functional ability. However, there is no evidence on including HIIT in a circuit programme (HIICT). Our objective was to determine what type of training (HIICT or MICT) induces greater adaptations in the functional ability and body mass index of middle-aged and older women. The study used a quasi-experimental randomized controlled trial with 54 participants (age = 67.8 ± 6.2 years). Participants were randomly allocated to HIICT (n = 18), MICT (n = 18) or a non-exercise control group (CG; n = 18). The participants in the HIICT or MICT groups trained twice a week (1 h/session) for 18 weeks. Forty-one subjects were analysed (HIICT; n = 17, MICT; n = 12, CG; n = 12). Five subjects presented adverse events during the study. Strength, gait, cardiorespiratory fitness, balance and body mass index were measured. A significant training x group interaction was found in the arm curl test, where HIICT was statistically better than MICT and CG. Likewise, HIICT was statistically better than the CG in the BMI interaction. In lower limb strength, gait/dynamic balance and cardiorespiratory fitness, both HIICT and MICT were statistically better than the CG. In conclusion, HIICT generated better adaptations in upper limb strength than MICT. Likewise, HIICT generated better adaptations in body mass index than CG. Finally, both HIICT and MICT had a similar influence on strength, cardiorespiratory fitness and gait/dynamic balance.

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has similar or better effects than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in increasing peak oxygen consumption (VO2max), however, it has not been studied when HIIT is applied in a circuit (HIICT). The aim of this study was to compare the effects of a HIICT versus MICT on VO2max estimated (VO2max-ES), heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) of middle-aged and older women. A quasi-experimental randomized controlled trial was used. Fifty-four women (67.8 ± 6.2 years) were randomized to either HIICT (n = 18), MICT (n = 18) or non-exercise control group (CG; n = 18) for 18 weeks. Participants in HIICT and MICT trained two days/week (one hour/session). Forty-one participants were assessed (HIICT; n = 17, MICT; n = 12, CG; n = 12). Five adverse events were reported. Cardiorespiratory fitness, HR and BP were measured. The tests were performed before and after the exercise intervention programs. VO2max-ES showed significant training x group interaction, in which HIICT and MICT were statistically superior to CG. Moreover, HIICT and MICT were statistically better than CG in the diastolic blood pressure after exercise (DBPex) interaction. For the systolic blood pressure after exercise (SBPex), HIICT was statistically better than CG. In conclusion, both HIICT and MICT generated adaptations in VO2max-ES and DBPex. Furthermore, only HIICT generated positive effects on the SBPex. Therefore, both training methods can be considered for use in exercise programs involving middle-aged and older women.

No abstract