Whole-body high-intensity interval training induce similar cardiorespiratory adaptations compared with traditional high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training in healthy men

Low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols that use the body weight as resistance could be an interesting and inexpensive alternative to traditional ergometer-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT-T) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). Therefore, our aim was to compare the effects of 16 weeks of whole-body HIIT (HIIT-WB), HIIT-T, and MICT on maximal oxygen uptake (V·O ₂ max), second ventilatory threshold (VT ₂ ), and running economy (RE) outcomes. Fifty-five healthy men (23.7 ± 0.7 years, 1.79 ± 0.01 m, 78.5 ± 1.7 kg) were randomized into 3 training groups (HIIT-T = 17; HIIT-WB = 19; MICT = 19) for 16 weeks (33 per week). The HIIT-T group performed eight 20-second bouts at 130% of the velocity associated to V·O ₂ max (vV·O ₂ max) interspersed by 10-second passive recovery on a treadmill, whereas HIIT-WB group performed the same protocol but used calisthenics exercises at an all-out intensity instead of treadmill running. Finally, MICT group exercised for 30 minutes at 90-95% of the heart rate (HR) associated to _. After the intervention, all groups improved V·O ₂ max, vV·O ₂ max, time to exhaustion (Tmax), VT ₂ , velocity associated with VT ₂ (vVT ₂ ), and time to reach VT ₂ (tVT ₂ ) significantly (p < 0.05). Moreover, Tmax, vVT ₂ , and tVT ₂ were greater after HIIT-T compared with HIIT-WB (p < 0.05), whereas oxygen uptake increased and HR decreased during the RE test in all groups (p < 0.05). Our results demonstrate that HIIT-WB can be as effective as traditional HIIT while also being time-efficient compared with MICT to improve healthrelated outcomes after 16 weeks of training. However, HIIT-T and MICT seem preferable to enhance performance-related outcomes compared with HIIT-WB.