Acute Physiological and Perceptual Responses to Whole-Body High-Intensity Interval Training Compared with Equipment-Based Interval and Continuous Training.

Abstract

Low-volume, time-efficient high-intensity interval training (HIIT), which involves whole-body (WB) callisthenics exercises, has gained worldwide popularity in recent years. However, the physiological and perceptual impact of WB-HIIT in comparison to specialised, equipment-based training is relatively less studied. This study compared the acute physiological and perceptual responses to a single session of WB-HIIT, ergometer-based HIIT (ERG-HIIT) and conventional moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). Fourteen physically inactive adults (age: 28.4 ± 6.5 years, VO_2peak: 31.0 ± 6.2 mL· kg^-1· min^-1) underwent three main trials (WB-HIIT: 12 x 30-s high-intensity callisthenics workout; ERG: HIIT: 12 x 30-s high-intensity cycling bouts; MICT: 30-min cycling at 50% peak power output) in a randomized cross-over order 3-7 days apart. The mean session heart rate (HR) and perceived exertion were comparable across all three protocols (p > 0.05). WB-HIIT attained a similar peak HR (87.4 ± 9.4 %HR_max) as that of ERG-HIIT (83.0 ± 8.6 %HR_max), and significantly greater than that of MICT (78.7 ± 5.5 %HR_max, p = 0.001). However, WB-HIIT induced significantly higher blood lactate levels (7.2 ± 1.8 mmol/L) compared to both ERG-HIIT (5.1 ± 1.3 mmol/L, p < 0.05) and MICT (3.1 ± 1.5 mmol/L, p < 0.001). The participants reported higher self-efficacy and greater enjoyment with WB-HIIT compared to MICT (p < 0.05). The mean HR and perceived exertion responses to WB-HIIT are comparable to those of equipment-based HIIT and MICT; however, WB-HIIT results in greater metabolic strain than both other modalities. Despite this, the overall perceptual responses to WB-HIIT are positive, suggesting that it could be a viable exercise alternative, especially for individuals with limited exercise time and restricted access to facilities and equipment.