Premium
CrossTalk opposing view: High intensity interval training does not have a role in risk reduction or treatment of disease
Author(s) -
Holloway Tanya M.,
Spriet Lawrence L.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the journal of physiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.802
H-Index - 240
eISSN - 1469-7793
pISSN - 0022-3751
DOI - 10.1113/jp271039
Subject(s) - high intensity interval training , interval training , medicine , endurance training , aerobic exercise , cardiology , disease , anaerobic exercise , physical therapy , physical medicine and rehabilitation , continuous training
Moderate-intensity continuous exercise has been used in clinical settings for decades and is known to have a plethora of benefits. The beneficial effects of endurance exercise are well documented: exercise adaptations result in mitochondrial biogenesis, increased skeletal muscle capillarization, improved vascular compliance, and increased stroke volume and cardiac output (Holloszy, 1973; Clausen, 1977). As a result, chronic endurance training (ET) is a well-known primary and secondary prevention tool for various pathologies, including, but not limited to, diabetes mellitus (Boule et al. 2001), hypertension (Cornelissen & Smart, 2013) and heart failure (HF) (Pina et al. 2003). Given the well-documented benefits of exercise on health, and the increasing incidence of lifestyle-related diseases, there is renewed interest in identifying the optimal exercise prescription. Two broad types of aerobic training have largely been represented in the literature: ET ( 50–80% V̇O2max) and higher-intensity/explosive type training. The latter is further delineated as either sprint interval training (SIT; short bursts at > 100% V̇O2max) or high-intensity interval training (HIIT; 90% V̇O2max),