Statistics from Altmetric.com
High-intensity intermittent training (HIIT) has gained popularity in recent years for its similar or higher effects compared with aerobic continuous training (ACT) or controls in different age groups, several health-related parameters and cardiovascular diseases (CVD)1–3 as well as in competitive athletes.
‘Intensity’ is not the only difference between HIIT and continuous training
To analyse the role of HIIT comparing HIIT group with controls is an adequate approach for describing acute or chronic responses to a particular training model. However, when aiming to compare the efficacy of two training regimens, it has been usual to compare HIIT with ACT.1 In those cases, authors explained the differences largely on the grounds of intensity.4 However, we highlight that these studies compared two training modalities which are different in their training intensity and in the stimulus type—intermittent versus continuous.
To the best of our knowledge, only three studies5–7 analysed the influence of intensity itself—by comparing HIIT and moderate-intensity intermittent training (MIIT). Alkahtani et al 5 examined the effect of 4-week MIIT and HIIT on fat oxidation and the responses …
Funding DJP was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation - MINECO (RYC-2014-16938).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.