PMID 37800068

Research
All papers

Effect of high-intensity interval training compared to moderate-intensity continuous training on body composition and insulin sensitivity in overweight and obese adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sanca-Valeriano S, Espinola-Sánchez M, Caballero-Alvarado J, Canelo-Aybar C

Question

Does HIIT differ from MICT for body composition and insulin sensitivity in adults with overweight or obesity?

Summary

This review compared HIIT with moderate continuous training in adults with overweight or obesity. Across 30 trials, HIIT and MICT produced similar body-composition changes, while insulin sensitivity slightly favored HIIT.

Methodology

  • Adults with overweight or obesity in 30 HIIT versus MICT trials
  • Aerobic interval training.
  • Work intervals: Seconds to about 4 minutes.
  • Recovery: Varied.
  • Intensity: About 80-100% maximum heart rate or aerobic capacity.
  • Varied.
  • Varied.
  • Generally 4 to 16 weeks.
  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
  • Insulin sensitivity, Body weight, Body fat, and Waist circumference were tracked.

Outcomes

Insulin sensitivity

HIIT favored insulin sensitivity compared with MICT.

WMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.03, p=0.02.

Improved

Weight/BMI

HIIT did not differ from MICT for weight or BMI.

Weight WMD -0.01, p=0.58; BMI WMD 0.06, p=0.53.

No clear change

Body fat

No significant between-intervention difference for body fat.

Body fat % WMD -0.50, p=0.07; fat mass WMD -0.19, p=0.39.

No clear change

Waist

No significant difference for waist circumference.

WMD -0.11, 95% CI -1.41 to 1.18, p=0.87.

No clear change

Insights

  • HIIT should not be marketed as clearly superior to MICT for fat loss in overweight/obese adults.
  • If insulin sensitivity is the target, HIIT may offer a modest advantage over MICT.

Limitations

  • Heterogeneous protocols and populations.
  • Risk of bias in included trials.
  • Safety and adherence were not synthesized.
  • Dietary control varied.

Safety

  • Adverse events were not synthesized or clearly reported in this review.
  • The review excluded chronic disease, pregnancy, and postpartum populations.
  • Most included exercise trials appeared structured or supervised, but supervision, adherence, and dropout context were not pooled.