The impact of sprint interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on blood pressure and cardiorespiratory health in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Although aerobic exercise is the primary modality recommended for the treatment of hypertension, it remains unclear whether high-intensity all-out sprint interval training (SIT) can result in greater reductions of blood pressure (BP) and cardiorespiratory health. This systematic review aims to compare the impact of SIT versus Moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on improvements in resting systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and maximal oxygen uptake (VO ₂ max) among adults.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of three online databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) from January 2000 to July 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the chronic effects of SIT versus MICT on BP in participants with high or normal blood pressure. We extracted information on participant characteristics, exercise protocols, BP outcomes, and intervention settings. Furthermore, the changes in VO ₂ max between the two groups were analyzed using a meta-analysis. The pooled results were presented as weighted means with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Out of the 1,874 studies initially were found, eight were included in this review, totaling 169 participants. A significant decrease in SBP (MD = −2.82 mmHg, 95% CI [−4.53 to −1.10], p = 0.08, I ² =45%) was observed in the SIT group compared to before the training, but no significant decrease in DBP (MD = −0.75 mmHg, 95% CI [−1.92 to 0.42], p = 0.16, I ² = 33%) was observed. In contrast, both SBP (MD = −3.00 mmHg, 95% CI [−5.31 to −0.69], p = 0.68, I ² = 0%) and DBP (MD = −2.11 mmHg, 95% CI [−3.63 to −0.60], p = 0.72, I ² = 0%) significantly decreased in the MICT group with low heterogeneity. No significant difference was found in resting SBP and DBP between SIT and MICT after the intervention. Both SIT and MICT significantly increased VO ₂ peak, with SIT resulting in a mean difference (MD) of 1.75 mL/kg/min (95% CI [0.39–3.10], p = 0.02, I ² = 61%), and MICT resulting in a mean difference of 3.10 mL/kg/min (95% CI [1.03–5.18], p = 0.007, I ² = 69%). MICT was more effective in improving VO ₂ peak (MD = −1.36 mL/kg/min, 95% CI [−2.31 to 0.40], p = 0.56, I ² = 0%). Subgroup analysis of duration and single sprint time showed that SIT was more effective in reducing SBP when the duration was ≥8 weeks or when the sprint time was <30 s.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed that SIT is an effective intervention in reducing BP and improving cardiorespiratory fitness among adults. Consequently, SIT can be used in combination with traditional MICT to increase the variety, utility, and time efficiency of exercise prescriptions for different populations.