High versus Moderate Intensity Running Exercise to Impact Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: The Randomized Controlled RUSH-Study

Abstract

Aerobic exercise positively impacts cardiometabolic risk factors and diseases; however, the most effective exercise training strategies have yet to be identified. To determine the effect of high intensity (interval) training (HI(I)T) versus moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE) training on cardiometabolic risk factors and cardiorespiratory fitness we conducted a 16-week crossover RCT with partial blinding. Eighty-one healthy untrained middle-aged males were randomly assigned to two study arms: (1) a HI(I)T-group and (2) a sedentary control/MICE-group that started their MICE protocol after their control status. HI(I)T focused on interval training (90 sec to 12 min >85–97.5% HRmax) intermitted by active recovery (1–3 min at 65–70% HRmax), while MICE consisted of continuous running at 65–75% HRmax. Both exercise groups progressively performed 2–4 running sessions/week of 35 to 90 min/session; however, protocols were adjusted to attain similar total work (i.e., isocaloric conditions). With respect to cardiometabolic risk factors and cardiorespiratory fitness both exercise groups demonstrated similar significant positive effects on MetS-Z-Score (HI(I)T: −2.06 ± 1.31, P = .001 versus MICE: −1.60 ± 1.77, P = .001) and (relative) VO2max (HI(I)T: 15.6 ± 9.3%, P = .001 versus MICE: 10.6 ± 9.6%, P = .001) compared with the sedentary control group. In conclusion, both exercise programs were comparably effective for improving cardiometabolic indices and cardiorespiratory fitness in untrained middle-aged males.

Similar cardiometabolic effects of high- and moderate-intensity training among apparently healthy inactive adults: a randomized clinical trial

“…Our study showed a higher MetS Z -score reduction after HIT than after MCT. The lowering of the MetS Z -score by supervised training is similar to what others have found in at risk patients [22, 51–53]. In addition, we found that HIT or MCT significantly reduced individual risk factors as others have found previously [22, 53].…”

Impact of a combined multimodal-aerobic and multimodal intervention compared to standard aerobic treatment in breast cancer survivors with chronic cancer-related fatigue - results of a three-armed pragmatic trial in a comprehensive cohort design

“…Nevertheless, the therapeutic effect sizes both at T1 and T2 are beyond or in the range of other published meta-analyses in breast cancer survivors [9, 52, 53]. Although the overall drop-out rate of 20% is high, it is within the range of other endurance training studies [54]. The four-fold respective five-fold longer intervention time of the multimodal- and combined treatment are related to corresponding higher costs of therapists.…”

The effects of high‐intensity interval training vs. moderate‐intensity continuous training on body composition in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Despite clear evidence for the positive adaptations following HIIT compared with MICT with regard to aerobic fitness and vascular function, it is still unclear which form of training is most effective for weight control, overall fat loss or central adiposity. Recent studies have analysed the comparative effectiveness of HIIT and MICT on body fat loss in overweight populations with varying findings (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35), but a systematic review is yet to be conducted. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of HIIT and MICT on body weight and body composition outcomes in healthy but overweight or obese adults.…”