- Shepherd, Sam O. et al. "Low-Volume High-Intensity Interval Training In A Gym Setting Improves Cardio-Metabolic And Psychological Health". PLOS ONE 10.9 (2015): 1-10. Web. 19 May 2017.
Using 90 inactive adults between the ages of 18-60, the comparison between high-intensity interval training (HIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MCIT) benefits were investigated by Shepard et al. It is commonly accepted that (MCIT) is beneficial, but whether (HIT) is comparable is still up for question. The investigation was conducted in 10 weeks, taking place in a gym like setting where the procedures of the exercises were implemented by an instructor [1]. Before the experimentation could begin on the 90 individuals, initial data recordings such as the VO2 max, psychological assessments, and blood samples were taken to be compared with after the duration of the 10-week training [1]. It is important to note that, participants in this investigation were all free of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases [1].
During days of experimentation, HIT exercises involved sprinting for 15-60 seconds at 90% or greater HR max with a 45 to 120 second recovery period in-between and finished off with 5 minutes of cool down on the cycle [1]. A typical routine of HIT exercises lasted only 18-25 minutes, and was only 3 times a week. On the other hand, MCIT individuals were directed to cycle for 30 and then eventually 45 minutes as the weeks passed by at ~70% HR max, 3 times a week. Furthermore, MCIT individuals where then expected to perform a moderate intensity exercise, such as cycling 2 times a week while wearing a heart monitor. This resulted in moderate activity 5 times a week for MCIT selected individuals and only 3 times a week for HIT selected individuals. Once these activities were done, data recordings are taken again on VO2 max, psychological assessments and blood samples [1].
Shepard et al found that HIT and MCIT both equally improved VO2 max, insulin sensitivity, and reduced abdominal fat mass, health perceptions and subject vitality. In contrast, Shepard et al also determined that while both being equally beneficial during the 10-week period, the average time spent on HIT was 55 minutes, while 128 minutes were spent on MICT. Furthermore, individuals in the HIT section had an attendance rate of 83% while MICT had a rate of 61% [1]. While HIT activities did have a better turn out rate, Shepard et al did notice participants mentioning that HIT is more painful and uncomfortable than MCIT during the duration of the training but were more willingly to show up [1]. To conclude, it is evident that for the same benefits, HIT is more efficient than MCIT in a timely manner.