Acute metabolic responses to high-intensity interval training in men with overweight or obesity: Does the exercise modality matter?
Question
Do isoenergetic running and cycling high-intensity interval exercise sessions produce different acute recovery metabolism, appetite, or 24-hour energy-intake responses in men with overweight or obesity?
Summary
Twelve inactive men with overweight or class I obesity completed isoenergetic running and cycling HIIT sessions in a randomized crossover design. When the energy cost of the sessions was matched, post-exercise oxygen consumption, recovery energy expenditure, fat oxidation, appetite, and 24-hour energy intake were similar between running and cycling. Cycling felt harder and produced a higher respiratory exchange ratio during exercise, but this did not translate into different short-term recovery metabolism or dietary compensation.
Methodology
- Inactive adult men with overweight or class I obesity recruited from a sports health medical center in France.
- 12 participants.
- Treadmill running.
- Work intervals: 45 seconds high-intensity running.
- Recovery: 90 seconds active recovery.
- Intensity: High-intensity phases targeted 80-85% estimated HRmax; recovery 50-55% HRmax.
- Mean 27.7 +/- 2.3 minutes plus 5-minute warm-up.
- Single acute session.
- Single session in crossover protocol.
- Randomized counterbalanced crossover pilot study
- Post-exercise oxygen consumption and EPOC, Energy expenditure, Substrate oxidation, and Perceived exertion were tracked.
Outcomes
Completion and safety
All participants completed both sessions with no adverse events, pain, or hypoglycaemia reported.
12/12 completed.
Exercise energy expenditure
Running and cycling sessions were successfully energy-matched.
297 +/- 41 kcal running vs 294 +/- 45 kcal cycling; p=.637.
EPOC and recovery VO2
Post-exercise oxygen consumption and EPOC did not differ between running and cycling.
EPOC p=.129; recovery timepoint VO2 all p>.989.
Respiratory exchange ratio and RPE
Cycling produced higher RER and higher perceived exertion during exercise than running.
Mean RER 0.98 +/- .03 vs 0.91 +/- .03, p=.002; RPE modality effect p=.001.
Recovery substrate oxidation
Fat oxidation increased during recovery versus rest in both modalities, but did not differ between modalities.
FATox recovery versus rest all p<.027; modality p=.388 for total grams.
Appetite
Appetite scores and sub-scores did not differ between running and cycling.
No modality differences in VAS AUC values.
24-hour energy intake
Energy intake and macronutrient distribution over 24 hours did not differ between modalities.
Energy intake 1931 +/- 803 kcal running vs 2043 +/- 450 cycling; p=.583.
Insights
- When energy expenditure is matched, running and cycling HIIT can be chosen based on preference, ability, and logistics rather than expected short-term fat-oxidation differences.
- Cycling may feel harder than running at similar estimated HR targets in inactive men with overweight/obesity.
- Acute appetite or 24-hour intake compensation should not be assumed to differ by running versus cycling modality.
Limitations
- Small pilot sample.
- Men only, limiting generalizability to women.
- EPOC was measured only for the first 2 hours after exercise.
- Intensity was based on estimated HRmax, which may not equate true relative intensity across running and cycling.
- Acute sessions do not show long-term fat-mass change.
Safety
- No adverse events, pain, or hypoglycaemia were reported.
- All men underwent a medical exam and sports physician pre-participation screening.
- Blood glucose was checked before, immediately after, and during recovery to detect hypoglycaemia.