PMID 38053128

Research
All papers

Home-based high-intensity interval training improves cardiorespiratory fitness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tsuji K, Tsuchiya Y, Ueda H, Ochi E

Question

Does home-based HIIT improve cardiorespiratory fitness in adults, and how does it compare with non-exercise controls, lab-based HIIT, and moderate-intensity continuous training?

Summary

This systematic review found that home-based HIIT improved cardiorespiratory fitness compared with non-exercise controls and may be broadly comparable to lab-based HIIT or moderate continuous training. The evidence was limited by few studies, varied protocols, mixed populations, and uncertainty around intensity control.

Methodology

  • Adults in randomized trials of home-based HIIT, with and without clinical conditions
  • Varied.
  • Work intervals: Up to 4 minutes by review definition.
  • Recovery: Low-intensity or passive recovery; varied.
  • Intensity: At least 80% HRmax/maximal aerobic power or high RPE.
  • Varied.
  • Varied.
  • Varied.
  • Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
  • Cardiorespiratory fitness, Compliance, and Adverse events were tracked.

Outcomes

CRF vs no exercise

Home-based HIIT improved cardiorespiratory fitness compared with non-exercise control.

SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.02.

Improved

CRF vs lab HIIT

Home-based HIIT was not significantly different from lab-based HIIT.

SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.03.

No clear change

CRF vs MICT

Home-based HIIT was not significantly different from MICT in the main standardized analysis.

SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.73.

No clear change

Safety

Most studies reported no adverse events, but some clinical or disability studies reported events or pain-related dropouts.

10 of 15 studies reported no adverse events.

Mixed

Insights

  • Home HIIT has evidence for improving cardiorespiratory fitness versus no exercise.
  • App programs should define intensity and track adherence because home studies vary widely.
  • Safety guidance should be population-specific rather than based on one pooled statement.

Limitations

  • Small number of studies per comparison.
  • Heterogeneous HIIT protocols and populations.
  • No consensus home HIIT protocol.
  • Limited patient-reported outcomes.
  • Some estimates were heavily influenced by one study.

Safety

  • All 15 included studies commented on adverse events; 10 reported none.
  • Reported events included wheelchair HIIT shoulder pain, post-exercise hypotension in coronary artery disease, and cardiovascular events in HFpEF not definitely related to exercise.