Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2020
Overview
Purpose of ReviewThe purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on blood pressure of hypertensive individuals.Recent FindingsContinuous aerobic training programs are successful in health promotion and are effective in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) modulation. However, HIIT seems to be superior to MICT to improvement of cardiorespiratory fitness.SummaryPubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared chronic effects of HIIT and MICT on BP in hypertensive subjects. Pre- and post-intervention changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) between MICT and HIIT were analyzed. Both interventions presented significant differences in SBP (MICT: mean difference (MD), 3.7 mmHg [95% CI = 2.57, 4.82], p < 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 5.64 mmHg [95% CI = 1.69, 9.52], p = 0.005) and in DBP (MICT: MD, 2.41 mmHg [95% CI = 1.09, 3.72], p = 0.0003; and HIIT: MD, 4.8 mmHg [95% CI = 2.9, 6.7], p < 0.00001) compared with the control group. No differences were found in the SBP values (MD, 1.13 mmHg [95% CI = − 0.01, 2.27], p = 0.05); however, differences were found between groups in DBP (MD, 1.63 mmHg [95% CI = 0.83, 2.44], p = 0.0001). In the secondary outcome, both interventions increased VO2max in comparison with control groups (MICT: MD, 1.30 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 0.92, 1.68], p < 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 4.90 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 3.77, 6.04], p < 0.00001), and HIIT promoted greater improvement than MICT (MD, 2.52 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 1.90, 3.13], p < 0.0001). In conclusion, HIIT and MICT promote reduction in SBP in adults with hypertension, and HIIT showed a greater magnitude in DBP reduction. For hypertensive patients, HIIT may be associated with a greater improvement in VO2max than MICT might.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
