High-Intensity Interval Circuit Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training on Functional Ability and Body Mass Index in Middle-Aged and Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Ismael Ballesta-García, Ignacio Martínez-González-Moro, Jacobo Á. Rubio-Arias and María Carrasco-Poyatos
Additional contact information
Ismael Ballesta-García: Physical Exercise and Human Performance Research Group, Universidad de Murcia, 30002 Murcia, Spain
Ignacio Martínez-González-Moro: Physical Exercise and Human Performance Research Group, Universidad de Murcia, 30002 Murcia, Spain
Jacobo Á. Rubio-Arias: Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, UCAM Research Centre for High Performance Sport. Department of Health and Human Performance, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), 28040 Madrid, Spain
María Carrasco-Poyatos: Department of Education, Health and Public Administration Research Center, Universidad de Almería, 04120 Almería, Spain

IJERPH, 2019, vol. 16, issue 21, 1-17

Abstract: The literature suggests that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) to improve functional ability. However, there is no evidence on including HIIT in a circuit programme (HIICT). Our objective was to determine what type of training (HIICT or MICT) induces greater adaptations in the functional ability and body mass index of middle-aged and older women. The study used a quasi-experimental randomized controlled trial with 54 participants (age = 67.8 ± 6.2 years). Participants were randomly allocated to HIICT ( n = 18), MICT ( n = 18) or a non-exercise control group (CG; n = 18). The participants in the HIICT or MICT groups trained twice a week (1 h/session) for 18 weeks. Forty-one subjects were analysed (HIICT; n = 17, MICT; n = 12, CG; n = 12). Five subjects presented adverse events during the study. Strength, gait, cardiorespiratory fitness, balance and body mass index were measured. A significant training x group interaction was found in the arm curl test, where HIICT was statistically better than MICT and CG. Likewise, HIICT was statistically better than the CG in the BMI interaction. In lower limb strength, gait/dynamic balance and cardiorespiratory fitness, both HIICT and MICT were statistically better than the CG. In conclusion, HIICT generated better adaptations in upper limb strength than MICT. Likewise, HIICT generated better adaptations in body mass index than CG. Finally, both HIICT and MICT had a similar influence on strength, cardiorespiratory fitness and gait/dynamic balance.

Keywords: high-intensity interval training; circuit training; older; middle-aged; women; functional ability (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4205/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4205/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:21:p:4205-:d:281683

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().