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.

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.

To determine how lateral shuffling/lateral shuffle (LS) -induced fatigue affects ankle proprioception and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance. Eighteen male college athletes performed 6 modes of a repeated LS protocol with 2 distances (2.5 and 5 m) and 3 speeds (1.6, 1.8, and 2.0 m/s). After LS, ankle inversion proprioception (AIP) was measured using the active movement extent discrimination apparatus (AMEDA). CMJ, blood lactate (BLa), heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured before and after LS. The number of changes of direction (CODs) in each protocol was recorded. LS-induced fatigue was evident in BLa, HR and RPE (all p < 0.05), increasing with shorter shuffle distance and faster speed. RM-ANOVA showed a significant distance main effect on both AIP (p < 0.01) and CMJ (p < 0.05), but the speed main effect was only significant for CMJ (p ≤ 0.001), not AIP (p = 0.87). CMJ performance was correlated with BLa, HR and RPE (r values range from –0.62 to -0.32, all p ≤ 0.001). AIP was only correlated with CODs (r = -0.251, p < 0.01). These results suggested that in LS, shorter distance, regardless of speed, was associated with worse AIP, whereas subsequent CMJ performance was affected by both LS distance and speed. Hence, AIP performance was not related to physiological fatigue, but CMJ performance was. Results imply that LS affects processing proprioceptive input and producing muscular output differently, and that these two aspects of neuromuscular control are affected by physiological fatigue to varying degrees. These findings have implications for injury prevention and performance enhancement.