# High Intensity Interval Training in Handcycling: The Effects of a 7 Week Training Intervention in Able-bodied Men

PMID: 28066268
Journal: Frontiers in Physiology
Published: 2016-12-23
Authors: Schoenmakers P, Reed K, Van Der Woude L, Hettinga FJ

## Question

Does HIIT improve physiological capacity and handcycling performance more than moderate continuous handcycling training in able-bodied men?

## Summary

In recreationally active able-bodied men who were new to upper-body endurance training, 7 weeks of handcycling HIIT improved peak oxygen uptake and peak power more than moderate continuous handcycling, while requiring less total training time. The study used specialized handcycling equipment and does not directly represent bodyweight HIIT.

## Population

- Recreationally active able-bodied young men
- Sample size: 24
- Age: 22 +/- 2 years
- Sex: Male
- Fitness level: Recreationally active; unaccustomed to upper-body endurance training
- Health status: Apparently healthy able-bodied volunteers

## Methodology

- Three-arm randomized controlled training intervention
- 7 weeks
- Laboratory handcycling on motor-driven treadmill
- Randomized and controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Handcycling HIIT.
- Modality: Handcycling.
- Work intervals: 4 min.
- Recovery: 3 min passive rest.
- Sets or repetitions: 4 intervals.
- Intensity: 85% heart-rate reserve.
- Session duration: 16 min interval work plus rests and warm-up.
- Frequency: 2 HIIT sessions/week plus 1 continuous session/week.
- Program length: 7 weeks.
- Progression: 65% to 85% HRR during first 2 weeks.
- MICT.
- Modality: Handcycling.
- Work intervals: Continuous.
- Sets or repetitions: 30-min continuous session.
- Intensity: 55% heart-rate reserve.
- Session duration: 30 min plus warm-up.
- Frequency: 3 sessions/week.
- Program length: 7 weeks.
- Progression: Velocity or resistance varied every 3 min around target intensity.

## Outcomes

### Peak VO2
Status: improved
HIIT improved peakVO2 more than MICT and control.

HIIT +22.2 +/- 8.1%; MICT +10.7 +/- 12.9%; p<0.001 for between-group comparisons reported.

### Peak power
Status: improved
HIIT improved peak power more than MICT and control.

HIIT +47.1 +/- 20.7%; MICT +32.2 +/- 8.1%; p<0.001.

### Training time
Status: improved
HIIT achieved larger adaptations despite 22% less training time than MICT.

HIIT total training time 434 min versus MICT 630 min.

## Practical Insights

- 4 x 4-min HIIT can be effective for upper-body endurance adaptations.
- Ramp-up weeks can reduce risk when introducing hard intervals.
- Upper-body HIIT may feel locally uncomfortable and should be progressed carefully.

## Limitations

- Small sample
- Able-bodied men only
- No muscle strength measures
- Specialized handcycling setup
- May not generalize to disabled handcyclists

## Safety And Adherence

- No adverse-event statement was found in the extracted NXML.
- All participants completed the study.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28066268/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00638) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179555/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.