A Comparison of High-Intensity Interval Running and TABATA on Postprandial Metabolism: A Pilot Analysis

PURPOSE: Compare the postprandial response following: 1) rest, 2) high-intensity interval running (HIIR), and 3) Tabata. METHODS: Recreationally active males (n = 7; age = 24.3 ± 4.8 yrs; body mass = 86.9 ± 20.1 kg; body fat% = 23.6 ± 6.2) performed each of the 3 bouts (in a randomized order) on 3 separate mornings with at least 7 days in between each bout. All participants were fasted for 10 hours prior to each bout. Rest was sitting for 25 minutes. Tabata was 25 minutes of repeated cycles of body calisthenics at maximal effort for 20 seconds followed with 10 seconds of rest. HIIR was performed the same as Tabata except the mode of exercise was treadmill running. Heart rate (HR) was monitored during both exercise bouts. The energy expenditure (kcal) from each exercise bout was estimated using the exercise HR and a regression equation. Thirty minutes following the completion of each bout, participants ingested a 75g oral glucose solution (OGS). At 2 hours following each bout, a high-fat meal (HFM) was ingested. Blood samples were acquired just prior to each bout and at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6 hours following the OGS. Postprandial blood samples were analyzed for glucose, insulin, and triglyceride (TG) concentration. The postprandial response was quantified via the incremental area under the curve (AUCI) using the trapezoidal method. Significant differences (p\u3c.05) in the postprandial response between the 3 bouts were determined using a one-way, repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc test. RESULTS: Average HR (bpm) during Tabata (167.6±7.1) was significantly lower (p=.04, ES= -.49) compared to HIIR (171.4±8.2). Energy expenditure was similar during Tabata (384.4 ± 35.5 kcal) and HIIR (404.5 ± 42.9 kcal) (p=.06, ES=.51). No statistically significant difference was found in the TG AUCI between rest (175.7 ± 102.6 mg· dl-1· 6hr-1) and Tabata (161.5 ± 86.8 mg· dl-1· 6hr-1) (p = .73, ES = .14) or between rest and HIIR (126.7 ± 74.6 mg· dl-1· 6hr-1) (p = .14, ES = .48). No statistically significant difference was found in the glucose AUCI between rest (80.8 ± 61.7 mg· dl-1· 6hr-1) and Tabata (41 ± 48.3 mg· dl-1· 6hr-1) (p = .29, ES = .65) or between rest and HIIR (51 ± 32.1 mg· dl-1· 6hr-1) (p = .13, ES = .48). No statistically significant difference was found in the insulin AUCI between rest (126.8 ± 55.8 µIU-1· ml∙6hr-1) and Tabata (74.5 ± 50 µIU-1· ml∙6hr-1) (p = .07, ES = .94) or between rest and HIIR (75.5 ± 33.3 µIU-1· ml∙6hr-1) (p = .13, ES = .92). CONCLUSION: Neither exercise regimen significantly reduced the postprandial TG response. The inability of either exercise bout to lower the TG response might be due to the consumption of the oral glucose solution post-exercise resulting in partial replacement of the expended energy. Previous studies have reported that partial or complete replacement of expended energy inhibits the ability of the exercise to lower the postprandial TG concentration. Despite no statistical difference, the postprandial glucose and insulin response following the exercise bouts might have been meaningful. HIIR lowered the glucose response in 6 of 7 participants by 3.5 to 71.7%. Tabata lowered the glucose response in 5 of 7 participants by 27.1 to 92.9%. HIIR lowered the insulin response in 5 of 7 participants by 10.9 to 77%. Tabata lowered the insulin response in 5 of 7 participants by 36.6 to 77.9%. The small sample size used in this study might also explain why no statistical difference was found. Previous studies evaluating Tabata-like exercises with a larger sample size have reported conflicting postprandial results. Using a larger sample size in the current study might have clarified the effectiveness of the exercises

The Effects of Multiple Bouts of TABATA on Post-Exercise Metabolism: A Pilot Analysis

PURPOSE: Compare the resting metabolic rate (RMR) following: 1) no exercise (REST), 2) completion of 1 bout of TABATA (1-BOUT), 3) completion of 2 bouts of TABATA (2-BOUT), and 4) completion of 10 bouts of TABATA (10-BOUT). METHODS: Recreationally active individuals (n = 5; 1F, 4M; age = 23.4 ± 1.9 yrs; body mass = 72. 7.2 ± 16.9 kg; body fat% = 28.7 ± 4.9) performed each of the 4 protocols on separate days with at least 7 days in between protocols. Rest consisted of not exercising on the day of the assessment. 1-BOUT consisted of performing a single bout of TABATA for 20 minutes. 2-BOUT consisted of performing two 20-minute bouts of TABATA. 10-BOUT consisted of performing ten 4-minute bouts of TABATA. Tabata involved performing repeated cycles of body calisthenics at maximal effort for 20 seconds followed with 10 seconds of rest. Participants completed the 1-BOUT just prior to having their RMR assessed. For the 2-BOUT, one 20-min bout was completed during the morning and the second 20-min bout was completed in the afternoon just prior to the RMR assessment. For the 10-BOUT, five separate 4-min bouts were completed in the morning and 5 more bouts were completed separately in the afternoon just prior to the RMR assessment. For rest, participants avoided vigorous activity throughout the day and then sat quietly in the laboratory for 40 minutes during the afternoon just prior to the RMR assessment. For each bout, the participants wore a Charge 3 Fitbit watch to track their physical activity on the day of their RMR assessment. Each of the four protocols was completed by 1600 hours in the afternoon. Five minutes following the completion of each protocol, the participants’ metabolic rate (MR) was assessed in 10-minute intervals over the next hour and was completed by 1730 hours. The RMR assessment included the participants’ average VO2 (l/min), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), fat oxidation (total grams), carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation (total grams), and total energy expenditure (TEE). Significant differences (pRESULTS: Average VO2 was unchanged between protocols (p=.86). TEE was unchanged between protocols (p=.86). RER was unchanged between protocols (p=.37). Fat oxidation was unchanged between protocols (p=.30). CHO oxidation was unchanged between protocols (p=.53). CONCLUSION: When compared to rest, the Tabata regimens did not have a statistically significant impact on the individuals’ metabolism. Despite no statistical difference, there were some meaningful reductions in RER following 1-BOUT (ES = -1.2), 2-BOUT (ES = -1.4), and 10-BOUT (ES = -1.6). In addition, there were meaningful elevations in fat oxidation following 1-BOUT (ES = 1.2), 2-BOUT (ES = 1.8), and 10-BOUT (ES = 1.7). There was also some mild elevation in energy expenditure following 1-BOUT (ES = .46), 2-BOUT (ES = .66), and 10-BOUT (ES = .58). This study is ongoing and the small sample size from which this data is being reported might explain why no statistical difference was found with the Tabata regimens. Assuming the moderate changes reported in RER, fat oxidation, and energy expenditure would remain, incorporating a larger sample size might lead to significant changes in the metabolic response following the Tabata regimens