The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of low-volume high-intensity interval training (LV-HIIT; i.e., ≤5 min high-intensity exercise within a ≤15 min session) on cardiometabolic health and body composition. A systematic search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to assess the effect of LV-HIIT on cardiometabolic health and body composition. Twenty-one studies (moderate to high quality) with a total of 849 participants were included in this meta-analysis. LV-HIIT increased cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF, SMD = 1.19 [0.87, 1.50]) while lowering systolic blood pressure (SMD = −1.44 [−1.68, −1.20]), diastolic blood pressure (SMD = −1.51 [−1.75, −1.27]), mean arterial pressure (SMD = −1.55 [−1.80, −1.30]), MetS z-score (SMD = −0.76 [−1.02, −0.49]), fat mass (kg) (SMD = −0.22 [−0.44, 0.00]), fat mass (%) (SMD = −0.22 [−0.41, −0.02]), and waist circumference (SMD = −0.53 [−0.75, −0.31]) compared to untrained control (CONTROL). Despite a total time-commitment of LV-HIIT of only 14%–47% and 45%–94% compared to moderate-intensity continuous training and HV-HIIT, respectively, there were no statistically significant differences observed for any outcomes in comparisons between LV-HIIT and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) or high-volume HIIT. Significant inverse dose–responses were observed between the change in CRF with LV-HIIT and sprint repetitions ( β = −0.52 [−0.76, −0.28]), high-intensity duration ( β = −0.21 [−0.39, −0.02]), and total duration ( β = −0.19 [−0.36, −0.02]), while higher intensity significantly improved CRF gains. LV-HIIT can improve cardiometabolic health and body composition and represent a time-efficient alternative to MICT and HV-HIIT. Performing LV-HIIT at a higher intensity drives higher CRF gains. More repetitions, longer time at high intensity, and total session duration did not augment gains in CRF.

Exercises can be categorized into either unilateral or bilateral movements. Despite the topic popularity, the answer to the question as to which (unilateral or bilateral) is superior for a certain athletic performance enhancement remains unclear. To compare the effect of unilateral and bilateral...

The aims of this study were (1) to determine how stair-climbing-based exercise snacks (ES) compared to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), and (2) to explore whether ES could improve maximal fat oxidation rate (MFO) in inactive adults. Healthy, young, inactive adults ( n: 42, age: 21.6 ± 2.3 years, BMI: 22.5 ± 3.6 kg·m⁻², peak oxygen uptake (VO₂peak): 33.6 ± 6.3 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) were randomly assigned to ES, MICT, or Control. ES ( n = 14) and MICT ( n = 13) groups performed three sessions per week over 6 weeks, while the control group ( n = 15) maintained their habitual lifestyle. ES involved 3 × 30 s “all-out” stair-climbing (6 flight, 126 steps, and 18.9 m total height) bouts separated by >1 h rest, and MICT involved 40 min × 60%–70% HR_max stationary cycling. A significant group × time interaction was found for relative VO₂peak ( p < 0.05) with ES significantly increasing by 7% compared to baseline (MD = 2.5 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹ (95% CI = 1.2, 3.7), Cohen’s d = 0.44), while MICT had no significant effects (MD = 1.0 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹ (−1.1, 3.2), Cohen’s d = 0.17), and Control experienced a significant decrease (MD = −1.7 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹ (−2.9, −0.4), Cohen’s d = 0.26). MFO was unchanged among the three groups (group × time interaction, p > 0.05 for all). Stair climbing-based ES are a time-efficient alternative to MICT for improving CRF among inactive adults, but the tested ES intervention appears to have limited potential to increase MFO.

We aimed to determine: (a) the chronic effects of interval training (IT) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) on physiological adaptations (aerobic/anaerobic capacity and muscle responses) and performance enhancement (endurance and sprints), and (b) the influence of participant characteristics and intervention protocols on these effects. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection), Cochrane Library (Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure on April 2, with updates on October 17, 2024. Pooled effects for each outcome were summarized using Hedge's g (g) through meta-analysis-based random effects models, and subgroup and regression analyses were used to explore moderators. A total of 24 studies with 621 participants were included. IT combined with BFR (IT+BFR) significantly improved maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max) (g = 0.63, I² = 63%), mean power during the Wingate 30-s test (g = 0.70, I² = 47%), muscle strength (g = 0.88, I² = 64%), muscle endurance (g = 0.43, I² = 0%), time to fatigue (g = 1.26, I² = 86%), and maximal aerobic speed (g = 0.74, I² = 0%) compared to IT alone. Subgroup analysis indicated that participant characteristics including training status, IT intensity, and IT modes significantly moderated VO_2max (subgroup differences: p < 0.05). Specifically, IT+BFR showed significantly superior improvements in VO_2max compared to IT alone in trained individuals (g = 0.76) at supra-maximal intensity (g = 1.29) and moderate intensity (g = 1.08) as well as in walking (g = 1.64) and running (g = 0.63) modes. Meta-regression analysis showed cuff width (β = 0.14) was significantly associated with VO_2max change, identifying 8.23 cm as the minimum threshold required for significant improvement. Subgroup analyses regarding muscle strength did not reveal any significant moderators. IT+BFR enhances physiological adaptations and optimizes aspects of endurance performance, with moderators including training status, IT protocol (intensity, mode, and type), and cuff width. This intervention addresses various IT-related challenges and provides tailored protocols and benefits for diverse populations.

Background: There has been a surge of interest on velocity-based training (VBT) in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether VBT is more effective in improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed (CODs) than the traditional 1RM percentage-based training (PBT). Objectives: To compare the training effects in VBT vs. PBT upon strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance. Data sources: Web of science, PubMed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Study eligibility criteria: The qualified studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis must have included a resistance training intervention that compared the effects of VBT and PBT on at least one measure of strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs with participants aged ≥16 yrs. and be written in English or Chinese. Methods: The modified Pedro Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects model was used to calculate the effects via the mean change and pre-SD (standard deviation). Mean difference (MD) or Standardized mean difference (SMD) was presented correspondently with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria including a total of 124 participants aged 16 to 30 yrs. The differences of training effects between VBT and PBT were not significant in back squat 1RM (MD = 3.03kg; 95%CI: -3.55, 9.61; I² = 0%) and load velocity 60%1RM (MD = 0.02m/s; 95%CI: -0.01,0.06; I² = 0%), jump (SMD = 0.27; 95%CI: -0.15,0.7; I² = 0%), linear sprint (MD = 0.01s; 95%CI: -0.06, 0.07; I² = 0%), and CODs (SMD = 0.49; 95%CI: -0.14, 1.07; I² = 0%). Conclusion: Both VBT and PBT can enhance strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance effectively without significant group difference.