CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 286Cardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and TrainingPhysical Activity and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 162 of the 163 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of low-volume high-intensity interval training on body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sultana, Rachelle N., Sabag, Angelo, Keating, Shelley E., Johnson, Nathan A.·2019·Sports Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s40279-019-01167-w
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Evidence for the efficacy of low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for the modulation of body composition is unclear.Objectives We examined the effect of low-volume HIIT versus a non-exercising control and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. We evaluated the impact of low-volume HIIT (HIIT interventions where the total amount of exercise performed during training was ≤ 500 metabolic equivalent minutes per week [MET-min/week]) compared to a non-exercising control and MICT.Methods A database search was conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus and Scopus from the earliest record to June 2019 for studies (randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials) with exercise training interventions with a minimum 4-week duration. Meta-analyses were conducted for between-group (low-volume HIIT vs. non-exercising control and low-volume HIIT vs. MICT) comparisons for change in total body fat mass (kg), body fat percentage (%), lean body mass (kg) and cardiorespiratory fitness.Results From 11,485 relevant records, 47 studies were included. No difference was found between low-volume HIIT and a non-exercising control on total body fat mass (kg) (effect size [ES]: - 0.129, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.468 to 0.210; p = 0.455), body fat (%) (ES: - 0.063, 95% CI - 0.383 to 0.257; p = 0.700) and lean body mass (kg) (ES: 0.050, 95% CI - 0.250 to 0.351; p = 0.744), or between low-volume HIIT and MICT on total body fat mass (kg) (ES: - 0.021, 95% CI - 0.272 to 0.231; p = 0.872), body fat (%) (ES: 0.005, 95% CI - 0.294 to 0.304; p = 0.974) and lean body mass (kg) (ES: 0.030, 95% CI - 0.167 to 0.266; p = 0.768). However, low-volume HIIT significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness compared with a non-exercising control (p < 0.001) and MICT (p = 0.017).Conclusion These data suggest that low-volume HIIT is inefficient for the modulation of total body fat mass or total body fat percentage in comparison with a non-exercise control and MICT. A novel finding of our meta-analysis was that there appears to be no significant effect of low-volume HIIT on lean body mass when compared with a non-exercising control, and while most studies tended to favour improvement in lean body mass with low-volume HIIT versus MICT, this was not significant. However, despite its lower training volume, low-volume HIIT induces greater improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness than a non-exercising control and MICT in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. Low-volume HIIT, therefore, appears to be a time-efficient treatment for increasing fitness, but not for the improvement of body composition.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40279-019-01167-w

Cites

162 of 162 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: WHO; 2010.
  2. World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
  3. Azar JT, Hemmatinafar M, Nemati J. Effect of six weeks of high intensity interval training on leptin levels, lipid profile and fat percentage in sedentary young men. Sport Sci. 2018;11(1):78–82.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 286

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sultana, R. N., Sabag, A., Keating, S. E., & Johnson, N. A.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Sultana, Rachelle N.
  • Johnson, Nathan A.
ORCID
Venue
Sports Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-08-10
Volume
49
Issue
11
Pages
1687-1721
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
DOI
10.1007/s40279-019-01167-w
OpenAlex
W2968860329
Cited by
286
References
163
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 21
FWCI
5.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
high-intensity interval training, body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, fat mass, body fat percentage, lean body mass, moderate-intensity continuous training, overweight adults, adult obesity, exercise dose, fat oxidation, energy expenditure
MeSH terms
Cardiorespiratory Fitness, High-Intensity Interval Training, Adult, Body Composition, Humans, Obesity, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Overweight, Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review