RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although the efficacy of interval training for improving body composition has been summarized in an increasing number of systematic reviews in recent years, discrepancies in review findings and conclusions have been observed. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of interval training compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and nonexercise control (CON) in reducing body adiposity in apparently healthy adults. METHODS: An umbrella review with meta-analysis was performed. A systematic search was conducted in seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) up to October 2023. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interval training and MICT/CON were included. Literature selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of interval training [high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and sprint interval training (SIT)], intervention duration, body mass index, exercise modality, and volume of HIIT protocols. RESULTS: Sixteen systematic reviews, including 79 RCTs and 2474 unique participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most systematic reviews had a critically low (n = 6) or low (n = 6) AMSTAR-2 score. Interval training demonstrated significantly greater reductions in total body fat percent (BF%) compared with MICT [weighted mean difference (WMD) of - 0.77%; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.12 to - 0.32%] and CON (WMD of - 1.50%; 95% CI - 2.40 to - 0.58%). Significant reductions in fat mass, visceral adipose tissue, subcutaneous abdominal fat, and android abdominal fat were also observed following interval training compared to CON. Subgroup analyses indicated that both HIIT and SIT resulted in superior BF% loss than MICT. These benefits appeared to be more prominent in individuals with overweight/obesity and longer duration interventions (≥ 12 weeks), as well as in protocols using cycling as a modality and low-volume HIIT (i.e., < 15 min of high-intensity exercise per session). CONCLUSIONS: This novel umbrella review with large-scale meta-analysis provides an updated synthesis of evidence with implications for physical activity guideline recommendations. The findings support interval training as a viable exercise strategy for reducing adiposity in the general population.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is characterized by repeated bouts of relatively intense exercise interspersed with recovery periods. Previous studies have evaluated this exercise strategy with various population subgroups, regimens, and comparator groups, limiting the generalizability of findings. We performed a novel umbrella review to generate an up-to-date synthesis of the available evidence regarding the effect of HIIT on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in adults as compared to non-exercise control and traditional continuous forms of exercise such as moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). METHODS: An umbrella review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews guideline. Seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) were searched until February 2024. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing HIIT and active/non-active control conditions were included. Literature search, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) were conducted independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: Twenty-four systematic reviews with meta-analyses, representing 429 primary studies and 12 967 unique participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most of the systematic reviews received moderate-to-critically low AMSTAR-2 scores. The data showed that HIIT, including the particularly intense variant "sprint interval training" (SIT), significantly increases CRF in adults compared to non-exercise control (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.28 to 4.31; weighted mean difference [WMD]: 3.25 to 5.5 mL/kg/min) and MICT (SMD: 0.18 to 0.99; WMD: 0.52 to 3.76 mL/kg/min). This effect was consistently observed across specific groups of individuals (e.g., apparently healthy adults, individuals with overweight/obesity, older adults, and high-level athletes) and HIIT modalities (e.g., low-volume HIIT, whole-body HIIT, home-based HIIT, aquatic HIIT, and short SIT). CONCLUSION: Existing evidence from systematic reviews consistently supports the effect of HIIT on enhancing CRF in adults when compared to non-exercise control and MICT. Our findings offer a comprehensive basis that may potentially contribute to informing physical activity guidelines aimed at improving CRF in the general population.