Skip to main content

Table 1 Study design, sample size, and participant characteristics of included studies grouped by clinical population

From: High-Intensity Interval Training in Older Adults: a Scoping Review

Study Study design Population Sample N Age (years ± SD) Females N (%)
Non-clinical populations
 Aboarrage et al. (2018) [18] RCT; HIIT vs controla Sedentary, healthy women 25 65 ± 7 25 (100)
 Adamson et al. (2019) [19] QE; SIT vs controla Sedentary, with well-controlled HTN, taking oral anti-hypertensive medication 17 66 ± 3 8 (47)
 Bailey et al. (2017) [20] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Higher-and lower-fit healthy males 47 70 ± 5 0 (0)
 Brown et al. (2021) [21] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Cognitively normal older adults 99 69.1 ± 5.2 54 (55)
 Bruseghini et al. (2015) [22] QE (within-subject); HIIT vs RT Moderately active males 12 68 ± 4 0 (0)
 Bruseghini et al. (2020) [23] RCT; HIIT vs MCT Healthy active older males 24 69.6 ± 4.1 0 (0)
 Coswig et al. (2020) [24] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs MIIT Sedentary, female residents of a nursing home without comorbidities that would preclude participation 46 80.8 ± 5.2 46 (100)
 Donath et al. (2015) [25] QE; HIIT Healthy and physically active older and young adults 40 70 ± 4, 27 ± 3 21 (53)
 Herrod et al. (2020a) [26] QE; HIIT (2-, 4-, or 6-week intervention) vs controlb Healthy, recreationally active older adults 40 71 ± 5 19 (48)
 Herrod et al. (2020b) [27] RCT: HIIT vs isometric handgrip training vs remote ischemic preconditioning vs controlb Healthy older adults 48 71 ± 4 22 (46)
 Hwang et al. (2016) [28] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Sedentary older adults 43 65 ± 1
 Kim et al. (2017) [29] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Healthy, sedentary adults 49 64 ± 1
 Kovacevic et al. (2020) [30] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs stretching Sedentary, healthy older adults 64 72 ± 5.7 39 (61)
 Krusnauskas et al. (2018) [31] RCT (crossover); SIT (6 × 5 s or 3 × 30 s “all-out” vs 3 × 60 s “submaximal”) Young and older women 19 65.7 ± 2.8, 19.5 ± 1.3 19 (100)
 Linares et al. (2020) [32] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT vs SIT Healthy older adults recruited from cycling clubs and recreational centers 30 69.6 ± 6.2 15 (50)
 McSween et al. (2020) [33] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs stretching Healthy older adults 60 66.4 ± 4.6 43 (72)
 Mejias-Pena et al. (2016) [34] RCT; HIIT vs controla Healthy older adults 29 69.7 ± 1 21 (72)
 Mekari et al. (2020) [35] RCT; SIT vs MCT vs RT Healthy, active older adults 69 68 ± 7 42 (61)
 Nakajima et al. (2010) [36] QE; HIIT vs controlc Older participants in a health promotion program and young controls 473 65.4 ± 7.5, 19.4 ± 0.9
 Nederveen et al. (2015) [37] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs RT Sedentary older men 22 67 ± 4 0 (0)
 O’Brien et al. (2020) [38] RCT; SIT vs MCT vs RT Healthy, active older adults 38 67 ± 6 23 (61)
 Osuka et al. (2017) [39] QE (within-subject); HIIT vs MCT Elderly men 21 67.6 ± 1.8 0 (0)
 Stockwell et al. (2012) [40] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT Participants with baseline exercise of 90 min per week 22 68.4 ± 3.8 6 (38)
 Storen et al. (2017) [41] QE; HIIT Healthy adults (ages 20–83 y) divided into age cohorts by decades 94 70+ cohort: 74.4 ± 4.4 22 (23)
 Venckunas et al. (2019) [42] RCT (crossover); SIT (6 × 5s or 3 × 30 s “all-out” vs 3 × 60 s “submaximal”) Untrained young, endurance-trained young cyclists, and untrained older males 11 69.9 ± 6.3 0 (0)
 Vogel et al. (2011) [43] QE; HIIT Untrained “older” and “young” seniors 150 66.0 ± 6.9 70 (47)
 Windsor et al. (2018) [44] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Lower-fit and higher-fit healthy older adults 30 70.6 ± 5.7 4 (13)
 Wyckelsma et al. (2017) [45] QE; HIIT vs controlb Older adults, active at baseline 15 69.4 6 (40)
 Yasar et al. (2019) [41] RCT (crossover); SIT (interspersed with 3 or 5 days of recovery) Physically active older and young adults 18 70 ± 8, 24 ± 3 6 (33)
 Yoo et al. (2017) [46] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT vs LCT Healthy men and post-menopausal women 28 67 ± 1 15 (54)
Cardiovascular populations
 Bailey et al. (2018) [47] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Males, healthy or with AAA 44 73 ± 6 0 (0)
 Currie et al. (2012) [48] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT Participants with CAD 10 66 ± 1 1 (10)
 Currie et al. (2013) [49] RCT; HIIT vs MCT Participants with a recent CAD event 22 65 ± 10 2 (9)
 dos Santos et al. (2018) [50] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT Participants with HTN 15 65.1 ± 5.37
 Guiraud et al. (2009) [51] RCT (crossover); SIT (15s or 60-s intervals with passive or active rest) Participants with stable CAD 19 65 ± 8 2 (11)
 Helgerud et al. (2009) [52] QE; HIIT vs controle Participants with peripheral arterial disease 21 67.5 ± 6.3 4 (19)
 Moore et al. (2020) [53] QE (pre-post); HCT vs controld Stroke rehabilitation inpatients 110 73.5 ± 12.2 47 (43)
 Nepveu et al. (2017) [54] RCT; HIIT vs controlb Patients with chronic stroke, average MoCA = 25.3 22 64.9 ± 11.2 5 (23)
 Reichert et al. (2016) [55] RCT; HIIT vs HCT (both with stretching) Participants with HTN 25 67.9 ± 5.9
 Sosner et al. (2016) [56] RCT; HIIT (dryland vs immersed) vs MCT Participants with HTN 42 65 ± 7 20 (48)
 Tew et al. (2017) [57] RCT; HIIT vs usual care for 4 weeks before surgery Participants with infrarenal AAA who were eligible for open or endovascular repair 53 74.7 ± 5.9 3 (6)
 Windsor et al. (2018) [58] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Healthy or with small AAAs 40 72.5 ± 5.7 0 (0)
Cardiac disease
 Angadi et al. (2015) [59] RCT; HIIT vs MCT Patients with HFpEF and NYHA II-III 15 70 ± 8.3 3 (20)
 Ellingsen et al. (2017) [60] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs controle Patients with LVEF ≤ 35% and NYHA II-III 231 61.8 40 (17)
 Fu et al. (2013) [61] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs controld Participants with HF 45 67.2 ± 2.2 16 (36)
 Iellamo et al. (2014) [62] RCT; HIIT vs MCT Chronic HF secondary to CAD 36 67.8 ± 7.0 5 (14)
 Isaksen et al. (2015) [63] QE; HIIT vs controlb Participants with HF and an implantable defibrillator 35 66.2 ± 9.1 3 (8)
 Isaksen et al. (2016) [64] QE; HIIT vs controlb Participants with ischemic heart disease and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator 30 67.1 ± 9.0 2 (7)
 Munch et al. (2018) [65] QE; HIIT Healthy or patients with HF 14 61.4 ± 5.2 2 (25)
 Spee et al. (2020) [66] RCT; HIIT vs controld Participants with HF selected for cardiac resynchronization therapy 24 68.9 ± 6.4 5 (21)
 Thijssen et al. (2019) [67] QE; HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Participants with HF 29 65 ± 8 5 (17)
Metabolic disease
 Andonian et al. (2018) [68] QE; HIIT Sedentary patients with prediabetes or rheumatoid arthritis 21 Prediabetes: 71.4 ± 4.9
Rheumatoid Arthritis: 63.9 ± 7.2
16 (76)
 Bartlett et al. (2020) [69] QE; HIIT Sedentary older adults with prediabetes and healthy young adults 10 71 ± 5 6 (60)
 Boukabous et al. (2019) [70] RCT; HIIT vs MCT Women with abdominal obesity 18 65.1 ± 3.6 18 (100)
 Hwang et al. (2019) [71] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Participants with T2DM 50 63 ± 1 23 (46)
 Karstoft et al. (2017) [72] RCT (crossover); MCT vs HIIT vs controlb Participants with T2DM 14 65.3 ± 1.7 3 (21)
 Maillard et al. (2016) [73] RCT; HIIT vs MCT Overweight women with T2DM 17 69 ± 1 17 (100)
 Mohammadi et al. (2017) [74] QE; HIIT vs controla Obese men 24 71.6 ± 5.0 0 (0)
 Pandey et al. (2017) [75] RCT; HCT vs MCT Participants newly diagnosed with T2DM 40 66.6 ± 9.0 12 (30)
Other
 Banerjee et al. (2018) [76] RCT; HIIT vs controld Participants with bladder cancer listed for radical cystectomy 60 72.1 ± 7.6 7 (12)
 Devin et al. (2019) [77] QE; HIIT (single session vs 4-week training) Male colorectal cancer survivors 20 65.9 ± 7.2 0 (0)
 Fiorelli et al. (2019) [78] RCT (crossover); HIIT vs MCT vs controlb Participants with Parkinson’s disease 12 66.5 ± 8.0 6 (50)
Hoffmann et al. (2016) [79] RCT; HIIT vs controla Community-dwelling participants with mild Alzheimer’s disease 200 70.5 ± 7.4 87 (44)
 Keogh et al. (2018) [80] RCT; MCT vs HIIT Participants with knee osteoarthritis 17 62.4 ± 8.3 13 (76)
 Mitropoulos et al. (2018) [81] RCT; SIT (arm crank or cycling) vs controlb Participants with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis 34 65.3 ± 11.6 31 (91)
 Northey et al. (2019) [82] RCT; HIIT vs MCT vs control Breast cancer survivors 17 62.9 ± 7.8 17 (100)
 Rizk et al. (2015) [83] RCT; HIIT vs HCT vs MCT Participants with COPD 35 67.3 ± 8.8 21 (60)
 Rodriguez et al. (2016) [84] QE; HIIT vs MCT Participants with COPD 29 68 ± 8 2 (7)
 Uc et al. (2014) [85] QE (initially randomized, then all allocated to MCT only); HIIT vs MCT and individual vs group training Participants with Parkinson’s disease, Hoehn and Yahr stages 1–3 60 65.4 ± 6.2 19 (31.7)
  1. Control specifiers: ausual activities; bnon-exercise control; ctype of control not specified; dusual healthcare; erecommendation of usual exercise
  2. RCT randomized controlled trial (if not further specified, parallel design); QE quasi-experimental (if not further specified, parallel design); HIIT high-intensity interval training; SIT sprint interval training; HCT high-intensity continuous training; MCT moderate-intensity continuous training; LCT low-intensity continuous training; RT resistance training; HTN hypertension; AAA abdominal aortic aneurysm; CAD coronary artery disease; HF heart failure; HFpEF heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; NYHA New York Heart Association; LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction; T2DM type 2 diabetes mellitus; COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease