A Comparative Analysis of Acute Physiological and Perceptual Responses in Whole-Body and Ergometer-Based High-Intensity Interval Training Protocols

Gustavo Z Schaun,Rafael B Orcy,Fabrício B Del Vecchio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sports12060166

2024-06-14

Abstract:The primary aim of the present investigation was to compare the acute physiological and perceptual responses between two modes of interval training using a randomized crossover design. More specifically, eleven young adult participants (23 ± 4 years, 77 ± 13 kg, 178 ± 7 cm) performed two protocols: one composed of whole-body calisthenics exercises and another on a cycle ergometer. Both protocols encompassed eight 20 s bouts at intensities equivalent to all-out (HIIT-WB) and 170% of the maximal power output (HIIT-C), respectively, interspersed with 10 s of passive rest. The peak and average heart rate, the rating of perceived effort, and blood lactate, creatine kinase, and lactate dehydrogenase concentrations were measured. Aside from blood lactate (HIIT-WB = 9.4 ± 1.8 mmo/L; HIIT-C = 12.5 ± 2.5 mmol/L, p < 0.05) and the rating of perceived exertion (HIIT-WB = 8.8 ± 0.9; HIIT-C = 9.6 ± 0.5, p < 0.05), physiological responses did not significantly differ between protocols (all p > 0.05), with high average heart rate values (HIIT-WB = 86 ± 6% HRmax; HIIT-C = 87 ± 4% HRmax) and a low magnitude of muscle damage, as inferred by CK and LDH concentrations (HIIT-WB = 205.9 ± 56.3 and 203.5 ± 72.4 U/L; HIIT-C = 234.5 ± 77.1 and 155.1 ± 65.3 U/L), respectively. It can be concluded that both protocols elicit vigorous heart rate responses and a low magnitude of muscle damage and, therefore, appear as viable alternatives to improve aerobic fitness. The inclusion of a whole-body HIIT protocol may be an interesting alternative for training prescription in relation to more common interval training protocols.