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) |