Effects of Two Workload-Matched High-Intensity Interval Training Protocols on Regional Body Composition and Fat Oxidation in Obese Men
Question
Do workload-matched cycling HIIT protocols using 10-second versus 60-second bouts differ in effects on regional body composition and fat oxidation in obese adult men?
Summary
Sixteen inactive men with obesity completed 8 weeks of cycling HIIT using either very short 10-second bouts or longer 60-second bouts matched for total work. Both formats improved VO2peak, fat oxidation, trunk fat, waist circumference, and leg lean mass similarly, with high attendance and no reported injuries or adverse events.
Methodology
- Inactive healthy adult men with obesity or high body fat.
- 16 participants.
- Cycle ergometer.
- Work intervals: 10 seconds at 100% Wpeak.
- Recovery: 15 seconds active recovery at 15% Wpeak.
- Intensity: 100% Wpeak work; 15% Wpeak recovery.
- 23 minutes including warm-up.
- 3 sessions/week.
- 8 weeks.
- Parallel randomized training study comparing two workload-matched HIIT protocols
- VO2peak, Body composition, Fat oxidation, and Blood lactate were tracked.
Outcomes
VO2peak
VO2peak improved similarly in both HIIT groups.
+20.0 +/- 7.2%, p<0.001, ES=1.42.
Body composition
Total and trunk fat mass decreased and leg lean mass increased similarly in both groups.
Total fat -1.81 kg, p=0.002; trunk fat -1.45 kg, p<0.001; leg lean mass +0.86 kg, p<0.001.
Fat oxidation
Fat oxidation increased over a wide range of submaximal intensities and peak fat oxidation increased.
PFO 0.20 +/- 0.05 to 0.33 +/- 0.08 g/min, p=0.001; Fatpeak 33.6 +/- 4.6 to 37.6 +/- 6.7% VO2peak, p=0.039.
Bout duration
The 10-second and 60-second protocols did not differ for the examined outcomes.
No significant group or interaction effects for main outcomes.
Insights
- When total work is matched, very short and longer cycling intervals can produce similar adaptations.
- Cycling HIIT can be a lower-impact option for inactive men with obesity.
- Readjusting intensity during a block helps maintain relative dose.
Limitations
- No non-training control group
- Small men-only sample
- Diet was self-recorded rather than fully controlled
Safety
- Attendance was high in both groups.
- No physical injuries and no adverse events were reported.