Evidence Hub

Comparing Time Efficiency of Sprint vs. High-Intensity Interval Training in Reducing Abdominal Visceral Fat in Obese Young Women: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

T. Tong, Hai-Feng Zhang, Hong-Ru Shi, Yang Liu, Jing-yi Ai, J. Nie, Z. Kong

Frontiers in Physiology, 2018

16 participants · 45 citations

Abstract

Introduction: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is an emerging lifestyle intervention strategy for controlling obesity. HIIT consisted of brief all-out supramaximal sprint intervals was termed as sprint interval training (SIT). This study was designed to examine the time-efficient characteristics of SIT in reducing abdominal visceral fat. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the specific adaptations of SIT (80 × 6 s all-out cycle sprints interspersed with 9 s passive recovery) with those resulting from a HIIT regimen with training volume relatively higher (repeated 4 min bouts of cycling at 90% V˙O2max alternated with 3 min rest, until the work of 400KJ was achieved), and with those of nonexercising control counterparts (CON). Forty-six obese young women (body fat percentage ≥30) received either SIT (n = 16), HIIT (n = 16), or no training (n = 14), 3–4 sessions per week, for 12 weeks. The abdominal visceral fat area (AVFA) and abdominal subcutaneous fat area (ASFA) of the participants were measured through computed tomography scans pre-intervention and post-intervention. Total fat mass and the fat mass of the android, gynoid, and trunk regions were assessed through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results: Following the intervention, abdominal visceral and subcutaneous fat were reduced markedly (p 0.05), while the reduction in ASFA (−17.4, −40.7 cm2) in SIT was less than that in HIIT (p 0.05). In contrast, the increase in V˙O2max was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free