# Acute metabolic responses to high-intensity interval training in men with overweight or obesity: Does the exercise modality matter? PMID: 41328698 Journal: Experimental Physiology Published: 2025-12-02 Authors: Couvert A, Rance M, Doré E, Martin V, Beraud D, Morel C, Pereira B, Lancha AH Junior, Boisseau N ## 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. ## Population - Inactive adult men with overweight or class I obesity recruited from a sports health medical center in France. - Sample size: 12 - Age: 44.4 +/- 14.5 years - Sex: 12 male - Fitness level: Low physical activity, less than 150 minutes per week - Health status: BMI 28.3 +/- 1.9 kg/m2; excluded diabetes, vigorous-exercise contraindications, joint pain, chronic arterial/respiratory/cardiovascular/endocrine disease, beta-blocker use, and weight-loss drugs ## Methodology - Randomized counterbalanced crossover pilot study - Two acute exercise sessions separated by 7-14 days - Sports health medical center/laboratory - Randomized and controlled study design. ## Protocol - Isoenergetic running HIIE. - Modality: Treadmill running. - Work intervals: 45 seconds high-intensity running. - Recovery: 90 seconds active recovery. - Sets or repetitions: 9-11 cycles; mean 10.1 +/- 1.0 intervals. - Intensity: High-intensity phases targeted 80-85% estimated HRmax; recovery 50-55% HRmax. - Session duration: Mean 27.7 +/- 2.3 minutes plus 5-minute warm-up. - Frequency: Single acute session. - Program length: Single session in crossover protocol. - Progression: Session stopped when energy expenditure matched the paired modality. - Isoenergetic cycling HIIE. - Modality: Cycle ergometer. - Work intervals: 45 seconds high-intensity cycling. - Recovery: 90 seconds active recovery. - Sets or repetitions: 9-11 cycles; mean 9.9 +/- 0.7 intervals. - Intensity: High-intensity phases targeted 80-85% estimated HRmax; recovery 50-55% HRmax. - Session duration: Mean 27.3 +/- 1.5 minutes plus 5-minute warm-up. - Frequency: Single acute session. - Program length: Single session in crossover protocol. - Progression: Session stopped when energy expenditure matched the paired modality. ## Outcomes ### Completion and safety Status: improved All participants completed both sessions with no adverse events, pain, or hypoglycaemia reported. 12/12 completed. ### Exercise energy expenditure Status: no clear change Running and cycling sessions were successfully energy-matched. 297 +/- 41 kcal running vs 294 +/- 45 kcal cycling; p=.637. ### EPOC and recovery VO2 Status: no clear change 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 Status: mixed 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 Status: improved 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 Status: no clear change Appetite scores and sub-scores did not differ between running and cycling. No modality differences in VAS AUC values. ### 24-hour energy intake Status: no clear change 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. ## Practical 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 And Adherence - 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. ## Original Sources - [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41328698/) (pubmed) - [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1113/EP093045) (doi) - [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12949090/) (full text) ## Agent Guidance Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.