Dataset Information

Evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of a home-based combined high intensity interval and moderate intensity training program for increasing physical activity among low-active adults: A randomized pilot trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High intensity interval training (HIIT), which includes short bursts of high-intensity physical activity (PA) followed by recovery, can increase PA by addressing time barriers and improving PA enjoyment. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a home-based HIIT intervention on PA.

Methods

Low active adults (n = 47) were randomly assigned to a home-based HIIT intervention or wait-list control lasting 12 weeks. Participants in the HIIT intervention received motivational phone sessions based on Self-Determination Theory and accessed a website that included workout instructions and videos demonstrating proper form.

Results

The HIIT intervention appears feasible based on retention, recruitment, adherence to the counseling sessions, follow-up rates, and the consumer satisfaction survey. HIIT participants reported more minutes of vigorous intensity PA at six weeks relative to control (no differences at 12 weeks). HIIT participants reported higher levels of self-efficacy for PA, enjoyment of PA, outcome expectations related to PA, and positive engagement with PA than the control.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence for feasibility and possible efficacy of a home-based HIIT intervention for vigorous intensity PA; however, additional studies are needed with larger samples sizes to confirm efficacy of home-based HIIT interventions.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials Number: NCT03479177.

SUBMITTER: Lewis BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9942957 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of a home-based combined high intensity interval and moderate intensity training program for increasing physical activity among low-active adults: A randomized pilot trial.

Lewis Beth A BA Schuver Katie K Dunsiger Shira S

PloS one 20230221 2

<h4>Background</h4>High intensity interval training (HIIT), which includes short bursts of high-intensity physical activity (PA) followed by recovery, can increase PA by addressing time barriers and improving PA enjoyment. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a home-based HIIT intervention on PA.<h4>Methods</h4>Low active adults (n = 47) were randomly assigned to a home-based HIIT intervention or wait-list control lasting 12 weeks. Participan ...[more]

PMID: 36809292

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoststroke guidelines recommend moderate-intensity, continuous aerobic training (MCT) to improve aerobic capacity and mobility after stroke. High-intensity interval training (HIT) has been shown to be more effective than MCT among healthy adults and people with heart disease. However, HIT and MCT have not been compared previously among people with stroke.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and justification for a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing HIT and MCT in people with chronic stroke.DesignA preliminary RCT was conducted.SettingThe study was conducted in a cardiovascular stress laboratory and a rehabilitation research laboratory.PatientsAmbulatory people at least 6 months poststroke participated.InterventionBoth groups trained 25 minutes, 3 times per week, for 4 weeks. The HIT strategy involved 30-second bursts at maximum-tolerated treadmill speed alternated with 30- to 60-second rest periods. The MCT strategy involved continuous treadmill walking at 45% to 50% of heart rate reserve.MeasurementsMeasurements included recruitment and attendance statistics, qualitative HIT acceptability, adverse events, and the following blinded outcome variables: peak oxygen uptake, ventilatory threshold, metabolic cost of gait, fractional utilization, fastest treadmill speed, 10-Meter Walk Test, and Six-Minute Walk Test.ResultsDuring the 8-month recruitment period, 26 participants consented to participate. Eighteen participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the HIT group (n=13) or the MCT group (n=5). Eleven out of the 13 HIT group participants attended all sessions. Participants reported that HIT was acceptable and no serious adverse events occurred. Standardized effect size estimates between groups were moderate to very large for most outcome measures. Only 30% of treadmill speed gains in the HIT group translated into overground gait speed improvement.LimitationsThe study was not designed to definitively test safety or efficacy.ConclusionsAlthough further protocol optimization is needed to improve overground translation of treadmill gains, a definitive RCT comparing HIT and MCT appears to be feasible and warranted.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for people with interstitial lung disease (ILD).DesignSingle-centre, randomised controlled feasibility, pilot trial.SettingPatients were recruited from the chest clinic of a tertiary ILD centre and attended circuit-based PR in the hospital's gym, followed by a personalised 6-month community programme.Participants58 patients, stratified per ILD type, were randomised into two groups: 33 to HIIT (18 males:15 females) (mean age (SD): 70.2 (11.4) years) and 25 to the MICT exercise mode (14 males:11 females) (mean age (SD): 69.8 (10.8) years).Interventions8-week, twice weekly, circuit-based PR programme of exercise and education, followed by a personalised 6-month community exercise programme.Outcome measuresFeasibility outcomes included staff-to-patient ratio and dropout rates per group. Primary outcome was the 6 min walk distance (6MWD). Secondary outcomes included the sniff nasal pressure, mouth inspiratory and expiratory pressures, handgrip and quadriceps strength and health status. Random-effects models were used to evaluate average variation in outcomes through time across the two groups.ResultsThe 6MWD peaked earlier with HIIT compared with MICT (at 4 months vs 5 months) but values were lower at peak (mean (95% CI): 26.3 m (3.5 to 49.1) vs 51.6 m (29.2 to 73.9)) and declined faster at 6 months post-PR. Secondary outcomes showed similar faster but smaller improvements with HIIT over MICT and more consistent maintenance 6 months post-PR with MICT than HIIT.ConclusionsHIIT is feasible in circuit-based ILD PR programmes and provides quick improvements but requires closer supervision of training and resources than MICT and benefits may be less well sustained. This would make it a less attractive option for clinical PR programmes. A definitive, multicentre randomised controlled trial is required to address the role of HIIT in ILD.Trial registration numberISRCTN55846300.

Project description:BackgroundKidney transplant recipients (KTRs) exhibit unique elevated inflammation, impaired immune function, and increased cardiovascular risk. Although exercise reduces cardiovascular risk, there is limited research on this population, particularly surrounding novel high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of HIIT in KTRs.MethodsTwenty KTRs (male 14; eGFR 58±19 mL/min/1.73 m2; age 49±11 years) were randomised and completed one of three trials: HIIT A (4-, 2-, and 1-min intervals; 80-90% watts at V̇O2peak), HIITB (4×4 min intervals; 80-90% V̇O2peak) or MICT (~40 min; 50-60% V̇O2peak) for 24 supervised sessions on a stationary bike (approx. 3x/week over 8 weeks) and followed up for 3 months. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, retention, and intervention acceptability and adherence.ResultsTwenty participants completed the intervention, and 8 of whom achieved the required intensity based on power output (HIIT A, 0/6 [0%]; HIITB, 3/8 [38%]; MICT, 5/6 [83%]). Participants completed 92% of the 24 sessions with 105 cancelled and rescheduled sessions and an average of 10 weeks to complete the intervention. Pre-intervention versus post-intervention V̇O2peak (mL/kg-1/min-1) was 24.28±4.91 versus 27.06±4.82 in HIITA, 24.65±7.67 versus 27.48±8.23 in HIIT B, and 29.33±9.04 versus 33.05±9.90 in MICT. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionsThis is the first study to report the feasibility of HIIT in KTRs. Although participants struggled to achieve the required intensity (power), this study highlights the potential that exercise has to reduce cardiovascular risk in KTRs. HIIT and MICT performed on a cycle, with some modification, could be considered safe and feasible in KTRs. Larger scale trials are required to assess the efficacy of HIIT in KTRs and in particular identify the most appropriate intensities, recovery periods, and session duration. Some flexibility in delivery, such as incorporating home-based sessions, may need to be considered to improve recruitment and retention.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN17122775 . Registered on 30 January 2017.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility.MethodsParticipants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT.ResultsOf 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of - 0,01 [95% CI, - 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, - 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, - 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64].ConclusionThere were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545 . Registered 13 August 2019.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of a home-based combined high intensity interval and moderate intensity training program for increasing physical activity among low-active adults: A randomized pilot trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of a home-based combined high intensity interval and moderate intensity training program for increasing physical activity among low-active adults: A randomized pilot trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets