Effects of different HIIT protocols on exercise performance, metabolic adaptation, and fat loss in middle-aged and...

Introduction: There is evidence that aging and obesity are associated with increased oxidative stress and chronic inflammation. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) may be superior to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in anti-inflammatory and anti-obesity benefits. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine which HIIT prescriptions will be more effective in reducing fat accumulation, inflammation, and improving metabolic adaptation and exercise performance in middle-aged and older overweight adults. Methods: Thirty-six middle-aged with overweight adults were divided into one of three groups: 1. L-HIIT group: the long-interval HIIT group (4 × 4 min Exercise/4 min Rest), 2. M-HIIT group: the medium-interval HIIT group (8 × 2 min Exercise/2 min Rest), 3. Control group: no exercise training intervention. All groups underwent the training stage for eight weeks (three sessions per week), followed by a detraining stage of four weeks in order to investigate the effects induced by different HIIT interventions on inflammation, metabolic adaptation, anti-fatigue and exercise performance, and fat loss Results: There was a significant physiological response in the change rate of heart rate (HR) after an acute L-HIIT session compared with an acute M-HIIT session (ΔHR: ↑49.66±16.09% vs ↑33.22±14.37%, p=0.02); furthermore, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased significantly following a single L-HIIT session. After an eight-week training stage, the L-HIIT and M-HIIT groups exhibited a significant increase in aerobic capacity (ΔVO_2peak), with values of +27.93±16.79% (p<0.001) and +18.39±8.12% (p<0.001), respectively, in comparison to the control group. Furthermore, in the L-HIIT group, the anaerobic power of relative mean power (RMP) exhibited a significant increase (p=0.019). However, following a four-week detraining stage, the adiponectin concentration remained 1.78 times higher in the L-HIIT group than in the control group (p=0.033). The results of blood sugar, blood lipids, body composition, and inflammatory markers did not indicate any improved it did not indicate any improvements from the two different HIIT protocols. Conclusions: The results indicate that an eight-week L-HIIT or M-HIIT intervention (three sessions per week, 32 minutes per session) may be an effective approach for improving aerobic capacity. It can be posited that L-HIIT may be a more advantageous mode than M-HIIT for enhancing anaerobic power, adipokine levels, and improving blood pressure in an aged and overweight population due to the induced physiological responses.