UNASSIGNED: Although aerobic exercise is the primary modality recommended for the treatment of hypertension, it remains unclear whether high-intensity all-out sprint interval training (SIT) can result in greater reductions of blood pressure (BP) and cardiorespiratory health. This systematic review aims to compare the impact of SIT versus Moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on improvements in resting systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) among adults.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a systematic search of three online databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) from January 2000 to July 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the chronic effects of SIT versus MICT on BP in participants with high or normal blood pressure. We extracted information on participant characteristics, exercise protocols, BP outcomes, and intervention settings. Furthermore, the changes in VO2 max between the two groups were analyzed using a meta-analysis. The pooled results were presented as weighted means with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
UNASSIGNED: Out of the 1,874 studies initially were found, eight were included in this review, totaling 169 participants. A significant decrease in SBP (MD = -2.82 mmHg, 95% CI [-4.53 to -1.10], p = 0.08, I2 =45%) was observed in the SIT group compared to before the training, but no significant decrease in DBP (MD = -0.75 mmHg, 95% CI [-1.92 to 0.42], p = 0.16, I2 = 33%) was observed. In contrast, both SBP (MD = -3.00 mmHg, 95% CI [-5.31 to -0.69], p = 0.68, I2 = 0%) and DBP (MD = -2.11 mmHg, 95% CI [-3.63 to -0.60], p = 0.72, I2 = 0%) significantly decreased in the MICT group with low heterogeneity. No significant difference was found in resting SBP and DBP between SIT and MICT after the intervention. Both SIT and MICT significantly increased VO2 peak, with SIT resulting in a mean difference (MD) of 1.75 mL/kg/min (95% CI [0.39-3.10], p = 0.02, I2 = 61%), and MICT resulting in a mean difference of 3.10 mL/kg/min (95% CI [1.03-5.18], p = 0.007, I2 = 69%). MICT was more effective in improving VO2 peak (MD = -1.36 mL/kg/min, 95% CI [-2.31 to 0.40], p = 0.56, I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis of duration and single sprint time showed that SIT was more effective in reducing SBP when the duration was ≥8 weeks or when the sprint time was <30 s.
UNASSIGNED: Our meta-analysis showed that SIT is an effective intervention in reducing BP and improving cardiorespiratory fitness among adults. Consequently, SIT can be used in combination with traditional MICT to increase the variety, utility, and time efficiency of exercise prescriptions for different populations.

UNASSIGNED: Exercise intensity has been suggested to influence acute appetite-regulating gut hormone responses after exercise. High intensity interval training (HIIT) with near maximal to maximal intensity or sprint interval training (SIT) with supramaximal intensity might induce greater effects on gut hormones compared to moderate intensity continuous training (MICT), while current findings were inconsistent regarding the effects of these popular training methods.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesis the findings in the literature and explore the impact of exercise modality on acylated ghrelin (AG), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY).
UNASSIGNED: After searching the major databases (PubMed, Web of science and ScienceDirect, Scopus, Cochrane Library) to find articles published up to May 2022, twelve studies that compared hormone responses to HIIT/SIT and MICT were identified and included in the analysis.
UNASSIGNED: A random-effects meta-analysis showed that HIIT/SIT and MICT decreased AG concentration and increased GLP-1 and PYY concentration compared with no exercise control group, while interval training protocols, especially SIT protocols, elicited greater effect sizes in suppressing AG levels at all of the analysed time points and PYY immediately post-exercise compared to MICT.
UNASSIGNED: Acute SIT with lower exercise volume appears to be a more advantageous approach to decrease plasma AG concentration and potentially suppress hunger to a greater extent compared to MICT, despite the similar effects of HIIT/SIT compared to MICT in increasing anorectic hormones (i.e., GLP-1 and PYY). Future studies are needed to further investigate the impact of moderators (e.g., gender, body composition and exercise mode) on the variability of changes in gut hormones after interval trainings.

to systematically search for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols vs. control without exercise or other exercise protocols, in patients with mental disorders experiencing depressive symptoms, and to provide some guidance based on the current HIIT literature to improve further interventions.
we searched for relevant studies, published by 18 August 2022 on PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus databases, that used a HIIT protocol, involving adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of a mental disorder, participating in a HIIT or a control condition, and assessed for depressive symptoms.
Four studies accounting for 108 participants (n HIIT = 55; n comparison groups = 53) met the inclusion criteria. Three out of the four studies included found significant improvements of depressive symptoms after 12 days to 8 weeks of intervention. However, there were no differences to other forms of low-to-moderate continuous exercise in 2/3 studies.
The limited evidence suggests the effectiveness of HIIT interventions for improving depressive symptoms in people with mental illness. However, HIIT was not superior to other exercise treatments, although a trend for its superiority may be recognized. A number of methodological issues should be considered in further interventions to better characterize and identify the most efficient HIIT modalities for the treatment of depressive symptoms in these patients.

Responses to sprint interval exercise (SIE) are hypothesized to be perceived as unpleasant, but SIE protocols are diverse, and moderating effects of various SIE protocol parameters on affective responses are unknown. We performed a systematic search to identify studies (up to 01/05/2021) measuring affective valence using the Feeling Scale during acute SIE in healthy adults. Thirteen studies involving 18 unique trials and 316 unique participant (142 women and 174 men) affective responses to SIE were eligible for inclusion. We received individual participant data for all participants from all studies. All available end-of-sprint affect scores from each trial were combined in a linear mixed model with sprint duration, mode, intensity, recovery duration, familiarization and baseline affect included as covariates. Affective valence decreased significantly and proportionally with each additional sprint repetition, but this effect was modified by sprint duration: affect decreased more during 30 s (0.84 units/sprint; 95% CI: 0.74-0.93) and 15-20 s sprints (1.02 units/sprint; 95% CI: 0.93-1.10) compared with 5-6 s sprints (0.20 units/sprint; 95% CI: 0.18-0.22) (both p < 0.0001). Although the difference between 15-20 s and 30 s sprints was also significant (p = 0.02), the effect size was trivial (d = -0.12). We observed significant but trivial effects of mode, sprint intensity and pre-trial familiarization, whilst there was no significant effect of recovery duration. We conclude that affective valence declines during SIE, but the magnitude of the decrease for an overall SIE session strongly depends on the number and duration of sprints. This information can be applied by researchers to design SIE protocols that are less likely to be perceived as unpleasant in studies of real-world effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/sbyn3.

The effects of short sprint interval training (sSIT) with efforts of ≤10 s on maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O2 max), aerobic and anaerobic performances remain unknown. To verify the effectiveness of sSIT in physically active adults and athletes, a systematic literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The databases PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus were systematically searched on May 9, 2020, and updated on September 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were based on PICO and included healthy athletes and active adults of any sex (≤40 years), performing supervised sSIT (≤10 s of \"all-out\" and non-\"all-out\" efforts) of at least 2 weeks, with a minimum of 6 sessions. As a comparator, a non-sSIT control group, another high-intensity interval training (HIIT) group, or a continuous training (CT) group were required. A total of 18 studies were deemed eligible. The estimated SMDs based on the random-effects model were -0.56 (95% CI: -0.79, -0.33, p < 0.001) for V̇O2 max, -0.43 (95% CI: -0.67, -0.20, p < 0.001) for aerobic performance, and -0.44 (95% CI: -0.70, -0.18, p < 0.001) for anaerobic performance after sSIT vs. no exercise/usual training. However, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) for all outcomes when comparing sSIT vs. HIIT/CT. Our findings indicate a very high effectiveness of sSIT protocols in different exercise modes (e.g., cycling, running, paddling, and punching) to improve V̇O2 max, aerobic, and anaerobic performances in physically active young healthy adults and athletes.

Dietary nitrate supplementation has shown promising ergogenic effects on endurance exercise. However, at present there is no systematic analysis evaluating the effects of acute or chronic nitrate supplementation on performance measures during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and sprint interval training (SIT). The main aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the evidence for supplementation of dietary beetroot-a common source of nitrate-to improve peak and mean power output during HIIT and SIT. A systematic literature search was carried out following PRISMA guidelines and the PICOS framework within the following databases: PubMed, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and SPORTDiscus. Search terms used were: ((nitrate OR nitrite OR beetroot) AND (HIIT or high intensity or sprint interval or SIT) AND (performance)). A total of 17 studies were included and reviewed independently. Seven studies applied an acute supplementation strategy and ten studies applied chronic supplementation. The standardised mean difference for mean power output showed an overall trivial, non-significant effect in favour of placebo (Hedges\' g = -0.05, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.21, Z = 0.39, p = 0.69). The standardised mean difference for peak power output showed a trivial, non-significant effect in favour of the beetroot juice intervention (Hedges\' g = 0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.30, Z = 0.72, p = 0.47). The present meta-analysis showed trivial statistical heterogeneity in power output, but the variation in the exercise protocols, nitrate dosage, type of beetroot products, supplementation strategy, and duration among studies restricted a firm conclusion of the effect of beetroot supplementation on HIIT performance. Our findings suggest that beetroot supplementation offers no significant improvement to peak or mean power output during HIIT or SIT. Future research could further examine the ergogenic potential by optimising the beetroot supplementation strategy in terms of dosage, timing, and type of beetroot product. The potential combined effect of other ingredients in the beetroot products should not be undermined. Finally, a chronic supplementation protocol with a higher beetroot dosage (>12.9 mmol/day for 6 days) is recommended for future HIIT and SIT study.

It remains unclear whether studies comparing maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) response to sprint interval training (SIT) vs. moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) are associated with a high risk of bias and poor reporting quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of bias and quality of reporting in studies comparing changes in VO2max between SIT and MICT.
We conducted a comprehensive literature search of 4 major databases: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Studies were excluded if participants were not healthy adult humans or if training protocols were unsupervised, lasted less than 2 weeks, or utilized mixed exercise modalities. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the CONSORT checklist for non-pharmacological trials to evaluate the risk of bias and reporting quality, respectively.
Twenty-eight studies with 30 comparisons (3 studies included 2 SIT groups) were included in our meta-analysis (n = 360 SIT participants: body mass index (BMI) = 25.9 ± 3.7 kg/m2, baseline VO2max = 37.9 ± 8.0 mL/kg/min; n = 359 MICT participants: BMI = 25.5 ± 3.8 kg/m2, baseline VO2max = 38.3 ± 8.0 mL/kg/min; all mean ± SD). All studies had an unclear risk of bias and poor reporting quality.
Although we observed a lack of superiority between SIT and MICT for improving VO2max (weighted Hedge\'s g = -0.004, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -0.08 to 0.07), the overall unclear risk of bias calls the validity of this conclusion into question. Future studies using robust study designs are needed to interrogate the possibility that SIT and MICT result in similar changes in VO2max.

This systematic review with meta-analysis (SRMA) was conducted to assess the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) programmes on men soccer players\' aerobic fitness (maximal oxygen uptake and aerobic performance), repeated sprint ability (RSA), vertical jump height (VJH), and linear sprinting time (ST). An electronic search yielded 1,714 articles, 33 of which were included in the present study. Meta-analyses revealed significant benefits of HIIT compared to controls in maximal oxygen uptake (p = 0.018), AP (p = 0.041), and RSA (p = 0.049). No significant effects were found in terms of ST (p = 0.080). The meta-analyses of non-controlled studies revealed significant improvements after HIIT in maximal oxygen uptake (p = 0.001), AP (p = 0.007), RSA (p = 0.001), and ST (p < 0.001). However, no significant improvements in VHJ were found (p = 0.063). Furthermore, no significant differences were found in sub-group analysis (comparisons between HIIT types). In conclusion, HIIT is effective for improving maximal oxygen uptake, AP, and RSA regardless of the HIIT type. For VHJ and ST outcomes, it seems reasonable to complement the HIIT since it might not be enough to achieve significant changes.

BACKGROUND: The combination of interval training and resistance training has showed interesting results in chronic heart failure patients, corroborating the benefits of physiological adaptations of both protocols.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the combination of interval training and resistance training program when compared to interval training alone and/or without intervention group on cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with chronic heart failure.
METHODS: We search MEDLINE via PubMed, ScienceDirect, Sportdiscus, BIREME and Scielo, from their inception to December 2018. Were included both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of combined training, interval training alone and/or WI group on VO2peak (expressed in ml/kg/min), in people with chronic heart failure patients. The meta-analysis was conducted via Review Manager v 5.3 software, using random effect model.
RESULTS: Ten articles were selected (nine randomized controlled trial), involving 401 participants. Six studies compared combined training with interval training and six studies compared combined training with the without intervention group. Eighty percent of the trials presented moderate risk of bias and twenty percent low risk of bias. Data showed significant difference and major increase in VO2peak in favor to combined training group compared to interval training group (SMD=0.25; CI=0.04-0.46) and without intervention group (SMD=0.46; CI=0.29-0.64), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of interval training and resistance training showed more effective in increasing cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with heart failure than interval training alone and non-exercise therapy. However, further studies should be conducted to increase the understanding of this combined training method.

Interval training (including high-intensity interval training [HIIT] and sprint interval training [SIT]) is promoted in both scientific and lay media as being a superior and time-efficient method for fat loss compared with traditional moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). We evaluated the efficacy of HIIT/SIT when directly compared with MICT for the modulation of body adiposity. Databases were searched to 31 August 2016 for studies with exercise training interventions with minimum 4-week duration. Meta-analyses were conducted for within-group and between-group comparisons for total body fat percentage (%) and fat mass (kg). To investigate heterogeneity, we conducted sensitivity and meta-regression analyses. Of the 6,074 studies netted, 31 were included. Within-group analyses demonstrated reductions in total body fat (%) (HIIT/SIT: -1.26 [95% CI: -1.80; -0.72] and MICT: -1.48 [95% CI: -1.89; -1.06]) and fat mass (kg) (HIIT/SIT: -1.38 [95% CI: -1.99; -0.77] and MICT: -0.91 [95% CI: -1.45; -0.37]). There were no differences between HIIT/SIT and MICT for any body fat outcome. Analyses comparing MICT with HIIT/SIT protocols of lower time commitment and/or energy expenditure tended to favour MICT for total body fat reduction (p = 0.09). HIIT/SIT appears to provide similar benefits to MICT for body fat reduction, although not necessarily in a more time-efficient manner. However, neither short-term HIIT/SIT nor MICT produced clinically meaningful reductions in body fat.