Solving the High-Intensity Multimodal Training Prescription Puzzle: A Systematic Mapping Review

Abstract

Background High-Intensity Multimodal Training (HIMT) refers to all styles of high-intensity combined aerobic, resistance and/or bodyweight exercise. Previous heterogeneity in exercise prescription and reporting in HIMT reduces the understanding of which factors should be considered when prescribing HIMT (e.g., exercise volume, intensity, duration). Previous studies have demonstrated positive effects of HIMT on health and performance outcomes. However, methodological disparities limit comparisons between findings. The objective of this systematic mapping review was to examine which prescriptive considerations and health and performance outcomes have been reported on in HIMT. This review also examined the quantity and trends of research conducted on HIMT. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using Ovid Medline, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library databases and additional sources to identify studies up until February 2023. A total of 37,090 records were retrieved, of which 220 were included for review. 246 individual HIMT protocols were included for categorical analysis against the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and Applied Research Model for the Sport Sciences (ARMSS). Results A total of 85 unique terms were used to describe HIMT. Included studies most commonly prescribed HIMT using a consistent exercise selection and circuit format. Exercise intensity was inconsistently reported on and a large proportion of studies prescribed ‘high-intensity’ exercise at a level lower than the American College of Sports Medicine criteria for high-intensity (i.e., < 77% heart rate maximum). Participation location, supervision and participation format were the most commonly reported non-training variables. The most frequently reported outcomes were cardiovascular health, perceptual outcomes, body composition and biochemical outcomes. A large proportion of previous HIMT research was experimental in design. Conclusions Previous HIMT research demonstrates a lack of standardisation in reporting. Future studies should seek to follow guidelines (i.e., CERT) to improve reporting rigour. Additionally, forthcoming research should attempt to actively involve practitioners in implementation studies to improve ecological validity among interventions. Finally, future outcome measures should be accessible in practice and reflect common training goals of participants. Registration This review adhered to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Preregistration: osf.io/yknq4.