# Cardiometabolic response to high intensity functional training versus rowing-based high intensity interval training

PMID: 42125178
Journal: Sports medicine and health science
Published: 2026 May
Authors: Astorino TA, Mower M, Flores A, Flannery M

## Question

How do acute cardiometabolic and perceptual responses differ between duration-matched bodyweight HIFT and rowing HIIT?

## Summary

In 22 habitually active adults, one acute bodyweight high-intensity functional training session and one rowing HIIT session produced similar peak oxygen uptake. HIFT produced higher peak heart rate, ventilation, blood lactate, perceived exertion, and less positive affect, while rowing produced higher mean oxygen uptake and energy expenditure.

## Population

- Twenty-two healthy habitually active adults
- Sample size: 22
- Age: 25 +/- 7 years
- Sex: 17 men, 5 women
- Fitness level: Habitually active; VO2max 40 +/- 9 ml/kg/min
- Health status: Healthy, non-obese, nonsmoking

## Methodology

- Randomized crossover acute exercise study
- Baseline testing plus two acute exercise sessions
- Exercise laboratory
- Randomized and controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Bodyweight HIFT.
- Modality: Pushups, jump squats, mountain climbers, air squats.
- Work intervals: One circuit lasting about 1 minute.
- Recovery: 75 seconds walking in place.
- Sets or repetitions: 6 sets of 10 pushups, 10 jump squats, 10 mountain climbers per leg, 20 air squats.
- Intensity: As fast as possible.
- Session duration: About 13 minutes for intervals and recoveries.
- Frequency: Single acute session.
- Program length: Acute crossover.
- Progression: None.
- Rowing HIIT.
- Modality: Rowing ergometer.
- Work intervals: 1 minute.
- Recovery: 75 seconds at 20% PPO.
- Sets or repetitions: 6 intervals.
- Intensity: 85% PPO.
- Session duration: Time matched with HIFT plus warm-up.
- Frequency: Single acute session.
- Program length: Acute crossover.
- Progression: None.

## Outcomes

### Peak VO2
Status: no clear change
Peak VO2 was similar between HIFT and rowing HIIT.

81% vs 82% VO2max; p=0.72.

### Peak HR
Status: improved
HIFT produced higher peak HR and more time at or above 85% HRmax.

Peak HR p=0.002; time >=85% HRmax p=0.03.

### Lactate
Status: improved
HIFT produced higher blood lactate during and after exercise.

p<0.001.

### Affect
Status: worse/safety concern
HIFT felt harder and less pleasant than rowing HIIT.

RPE higher after intervals 3 and 6; affect post-exercise p=0.004.

## Practical Insights

- A bodyweight HIFT circuit can reach very high HR and lactate in active adults.
- Higher physiological stress came with higher RPE and lower affective valence.
- Rowing HIIT may produce higher mean VO2 and energy expenditure than all-out HIFT.

## Limitations

- Acute-only design.
- Healthy active sample, not inactive or clinical.
- Specific protocols and recovery modes limit generalization.
- Post-exercise metabolic monitoring lasted only 15 minutes.
- Adverse-event reporting was not explicit.

## Safety And Adherence

- Adverse events were not explicitly reported.
- Participants were screened with a health-history questionnaire and PAR-Q; pregnancy or conditions precluding participation were exclusionary.
- Of 24 who consented, one male did not complete HIFT and one female learned she was pregnant after baseline testing; 22 completed all requirements.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42125178/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smhs.2025.01.003) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13159451/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.