Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2025
Adapted Resistance Training Improves Strength in Eight Weeks in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis
Published on: January 29, 2016
Is High-Intensity Interval Training More Effective Than Moderate Continuous Training in Rehabilitation of Multiple
Hussein Youssef1, Mine Nur Gönül2, Mohamed Gomaa Sobeeh3
1Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine (KUTTAM), İstanbul, Türkiye; Koç University Graduate School of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Türkiye; Hasselt University, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Objectives:
The present study aimed to conduct meta-analysis to determine whether the high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is more beneficial in improving outcome measures compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). It also aimed to systematically review the exercise protocols differences.
Data Sources:
A search strategy, locating HIIT in PwMS, was executed in six databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Central Cochrane, Pedro, and Ovid MEDLine.
Study Selection:
Randomized control trials of HIIT utilizing cycle ergometer or recumbent stepper as exercise modalities were included in analysis. Intervention arms should include at least two intervention arms, including HIIT in one arm, and MCT in the other group.
Data Extraction:
Data extracted from each study includes the following items: basic details of the study (such as author, date of publication, location, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, mean age, sex, mean disease duration, and extended disability status scale), specifications of the HITT protocol (exercise modality, session duration, number of intervals/session, interval intensity, recovery intensity, recovery interval, and adverse effect), as well as primary outcomes at baseline and post-intervention (cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers).
Data Synthesis:
22 studies included in the systematic review, 11 were included in random effects model pooled analysis. There was a significant effect in favor of HIIT for VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions compared to MCT (ES=0.45 95%, CI [0.14, 0.76], P=.004), and for memory domain of cognitive functions (ES=0.34 95% CI [0.05, 0.63], P=.02). Statistical significance was not achieved for the other variables.
Conclusion:
HIIT and MCT yield similar results in terms of fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers. However, VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions and memory domain of cognitive functions were in favor of HIIT protocol.
