Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 27

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001809

The effects of exercise modality during additional 'high-intensity interval

training' upon aerobic fitness and strength in powerlifting and strongman


Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis (p.androulakis.korakakis@gmail.com), aLouis

Langdown (louis.langdown@solent.ac.uk), aAdam Lewis (adam.lewis@solent.ac.uk),
James Fisher (james.fisher@solent.ac.uk), bPaulo Gentil

(paulogentil@hotmail.com), cAntonio Paoli (antonio.paoli@unipd.it), aJames Steele


School of Sport, Health and Social Sciences, Southampton Solent University, UK,
Faculty of Physical Education and Dance, Federal University of Goias, Brazil,
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy


James Steele (james.steele@solent.ac.uk)


Centre for Health Exercise and Sport Science,

Southampton Solent University,


East Park Terrace,



SO14 0YN

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT


Powerlifters and strongman athletes have a necessity for optimal levels of muscular

strength whilst maintaining sufficient aerobic capacity to perform and recover

between events. HIIT has been popularized for its efficacy in improving both aerobic

fitness and strength but never assessed within the aforementioned population group.

The present study looked to compare the effect of exercise modality, e.g. a traditional

aerobic mode (AM), and strength mode, (SM), during HIIT upon aerobic fitness and

strength. Sixteen well resistance trained male participants, currently competing in

powerlifting and strongman events, completed 8 weeks of approximately effort- and

volume-matched HIIT in 2 groups: AM (cycling, n=8) and SM (resistance training,

n=8). Aerobic fitness was measured as predicted using the YMCA 3 minute

step test and strength as predicted 1RM from a 4-6RM test using a leg extension.

Both groups showed significant improvements in both strength and aerobic fitness.

There was a significant between-group difference for aerobic fitness improvements

favoring the AM group (p<0.05). There was no between-group difference for change

in strength. Magnitude of change using within group effect size (ES) for aerobic

fitness and strength were considered large for each group (aerobic fitness, AM = 2.6,

SM = 2.0; strength, AM = 1.9, SM = 1.8). In conclusion, our results support enhanced

strength and aerobic fitness irrespective of exercise modality (e.g. traditional aerobic

and resistance training). However, powerlifters and strongman athletes wishing to

enhance their aerobic fitness should consider HIIT using an aerobic HIIT mode.

Keywords: HIIT; resistance training; aerobic training; cycling; effort

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT


Powerlifters and strongman athletes have a need for aerobic and anaerobic

fitness. Authors have previously suggested that performing activities such as

pushing/pulling a car can cause athletes to reach 44-49% of their and 90-

92% of their maximal heart rate (7). As such, high numbers (e.g. ~90%; 74) of these

athletes are incorporating aerobic and anaerobic conditioning in to their training

practices to supplement their strength training. However, performance of concurrent

aerobic- and strength-training has suggested that including tradional aerobic training

activites (e.g. cycling, running and swimming) might reduce strength adaptations

It has been suggested that high intensity interval training (HIIT) can be an

efficient and effective way of increasing aerobic fitness and strength in both untrained

and trained individuals (10). Furthermore, HIIT has been popularized mostly for its

time-efficient ability to induce adaptation without requiring any specific equipment as


long as a high intensity of effort is maintained (27,29). A typical HIIT protocol will

consist of bouts of high effort followed by an active or passive recovery period (63).

However, HIIT has typically been employed with exercise modes considered

traditionally as aerobic (e.g. running, cycling etc.; 2,40). In a recent publication by


the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), HIIT was presented as a tool that

can improve aerobic fitness and can be performed on all exercise modes but

without any mention of possible strength improvements or reference to any

resistance training mode of exercise (38). As HIIT gains momentum in both research

and application, particularly with regard to its potential health benefits (8), the effect

of exercise mode upon adaptations has also begun to receive more attention.

Resistance training with multi-joint exercises such as the squat and deadlift could be

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

used to perform a HIIT protocol as they consist of bouts of maximal or near maximal

effort followed by a recovery period. Indeed, HIIT has been examined using

resistance training for its effects upon acute energy expenditure (56) and both

strength, body composition, blood lipids (49) and aerobic fitness (16,65,10).

However, controlled comparison of exercise modes during HIIT has received little

investigation (10).

An issue with the present body of research considering modality during HIIT

is a lack of appropriate definition and control of intensity. It has recently been

argued with respect to resistance training that intensity may be best defined as

relative effort (i.e. proximity to momentary failure; 22,67) rather than relative load

(e.g. %1 repetition maximum [RM]) as it has previously been referred to in a

resistance training context (59,25,72). Consideration of how intensity has been

defined has implications for interpretation of studies examining HIIT. Indeed, though
health benefits might occur in nave participants from exercise performed at any

intensity of effort, it has been argued that adaptations (e.g. muscular strength and

hypertrophy, aerobic fitness, and health measures) might be similar across exercise

modes if the effort is high (23). Fatiguing contractions (irrespective of exercise mode)

result in increased relative effort and subsequent sequential motor unit recruitment in

order to meet the required force demands of the task being performed (1,17,13,70).

Previous studies comparing traditional aerobic modalities of exercise and resistance


training based HIIT have not clearly controlled intensity of effort (16,65). Additionally,

other studies investigating the effect of different exercise modes using HIIT often

report only one physiological adaptation such as strength or aerobic fitness without

assessing and comparing both (19,65).

Improvements in both aerobic fitness in addition to strength and hypertrophy

may be possible with a range of independent exercise modes as long as effort is high

(23). Ozaki et al (51) report increased aerobic fitness as a result of resistance

training, and Steele et al (69) conclude that resistance training performed at maximal

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

effort (e.g. reaching momentary failure), may optimize these improvements.

Lundberg et al. (43) have also reported augmented hypertrophic outcomes from the

performance of maximal effort cycling and a range of other authors have reported

improved strength and hypertrophy from aerobic modalities (37,51,53).

In light of the above there is a relative dearth of literature investigating

concurrent training in powerlifting and strongman athletes for concurrent strength and

aerobic adaptations. Furthermore, examining the effect of exercise mode and the

importance of effort may allow for increased flexibility when selecting mode of

exercise for powerlifters and strongman athletes as well as for untrained persons.

With this in mind the aim of the present study was to compare ecologically valid HIIT

protocols matched approximately for effort and volume, each employing a different

mode of exercise (aerobic or resistance training). Both intervention strategies were

compared for their effects upon aerobic fitness and strength over an 8 week training
intervention in well trained male participants. It was hypothesized that, when effort is

controlled and matched, both modes would result in similar adaptations in aerobic

fitness and strength.



Experimental Approach to the Problem

In order to investigate the hypothesis that exercise mode during additional


HIIT would produce similar aerobic fitness and strength adaptations a randomized

trial with 2 experimental groups was adopted. Well trained subjects (powerlifters and

strongman athletes) performed an 8 week HIIT exercise intervention 2x/week,

employing one of two different exercise protocols based on two different exercise

modes, an aerobic mode of exercise (cycling; AM) and a strength training mode of

exercise (resistance training; SM). At least 48 hours separated each HIIT session.

Subjects were not instructed to avoid any external training sessions. Thus the HIIT

intervention was performed in addition to their existing training which they were

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

asked to maintain at the same frequency, volume, loadings and effort, for any

resistance or aerobic training they were currently performing (see below). The

outcome measures included were strength and aerobic fitness. The independent

variable in this study therefoe was the group to which subjects were randomly

assigned (AM or SM), and the dependent varible the change in each of the outcome

measures (strength and aerobic fitness). The study received the approval of the

Health, Exercise and Sports Science Ethics Committee of Southampton Solent

University (Reference No. 456).


Sixteen trained males aged 243 years (range 21 to 28 years) with resistance

training experience of at least 2 years, including engagement and competition in

strength sports (powerlifting, strongman etc.) were recruited from a local strength-
sports gym to participate in this study. All subjects were asked to provide information

regarding their training experience, as it was important to clarify whether they had

been previously engaging in resistance training, aerobic training, or both. A


significant proportion of subjects (75%) reported their primary experience was with

resistance training and strength-based sports while a few subjects reported that they

had been engaging in both aerobic and resistance training. The subjects reported

themselves to all currently be in a hypertrophy/general strength training cycle and


their current training was reported as being performed at a frequency of 2-5x/week,

using loads ranging 60-85%1RM, with a 7-8.5 rating of perceived effort (RPE) for

working sets, and a 8 RPE for aerobic sessions. The participants were assigned by

random number generation to the AM (n=8) and SM (n=8) group. All participants

were familiar with the equipment used in the studywhich was important to minimize

any learning effects from affecting outcome measures. All subjects were provided

with an infromation sheet describing the details of the study including the benefits

and risks of participation and given time to read it and ask the investigators and

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

questions. After the subjects and investigators were satisified that subjects had an

understanding of what they would be asked to do, subjects were provided with and

signed and institutionally approved informed consent document in order to


Procedures & Protocols

1. Testing

Both groups were required to undertake tests to assess aerobic fitness and

lower body strength pre and post intervention. Pre and post testing was conducted at

the same time of day both pree and post-intervention and subjects instructed to

maintain normals levels of hydration, ensure they did not make any changes to their

diet, and to avoid training or ingestion of stimulants or alcholol for at least 48 prior to

testing. The aerobic fitness test used was the YMCA 3 minute step test as it is a valid
and reliable test that is easy to set up and predicts with r = 0.83 (6). The

YMCA 3 minute step test was used both as an independent test examining

participants heart rate response (YMCAhr) as well as a predictor of


(YMCA ) using the formula from McArdle (47). Strength testing was performed

on a G7-S71 leg extension machine (Matrix Fitness, United Kingdom). The baseline

strength level of all participants did not allow for 1 repetition maximum (RM) testing

as all were able to perform >2 repetitions with the leg extension machines maximum

load (117kg). Thus a 4-6RM was used to predict their 1RM using Dohoneys (18)

formula, which has been shown to be accurate for estimating 1RM in the leg

extension machine (20). The step test and in particular the leg extension machine

were chosen as test modes that neither group were performing in their current

training or respective training interventions thus mitigating any possible learning

effects upon strength gains (11,24).

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

2. Training

The AM group was assigned a ~20 minute HIIT protocol based on the U7xi

cycle ergometer (Matrix Fitness, United Kingdom) for 2 sessions a week. Effort was

assessed via a combination of age predicted maximum heart rate (MHR; 220-age)

and via the Borg CR10 RPE scale (9) as it can be a valid tool to measure perceived

effort in trained individuals (58). MHR was predicted by the equation 220-age. The

AM group warmed-up at 60%MHR/5-6 RPE for the first 5 minutes before beginning

the HIIT protocol. The AM group HIIT protocol consisted of a high effort bout at

85%MHR/RPE 8-9 for 30 seconds followed by a recovery period of 1 minute and 30

seconds at 50-60%MHR/5-6 RPE. The above interval was repeated 7 times and was

then followed by a cool down for 5 minutes at 50%MHR/RPE 4-5. The participants

RPE was recorded throughout the protocol to ensure that intensity of effort targets

were met.
The SM group was assigned a ~20 minute HIIT protocol based around the

barbell deadlift and squat exercises. The SM group was required to perform one

squat and one deadlift session per week totalling 2 sessions a week. The participants

were allowed to self-select their squat stance and bar placement as long as it

allowed them to squat to the point where the anterior surface of the thigh at the hip

joint was lower than the top of their knees. The participants were also allowed to self-

select their deadlift stance, as long as they were comfortable with maintaining their

stance until the targeted RPE was reached. The SM group warmed-up by performing

squats or deadlifts by performing 1 set of 5 repetitions with 30%, 40% and 50% of

their 1RM using a ~1 second concentric and ~1 second eccentric repetition duration.

The participants 1RM was either based on a self-reported 1RM or was calculated

based on a formula developed by Baechle & Earle (4). The high intensity bout in the

SM group consisted of repetitions with 60% of 1RM using a ~1 second concentric

and ~1 second eccentric repetition duration. Participants performed repetitions until

they felt they were at an RPE of 8-9. The resulting repetition range was 8-15 with

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

sets lasting ~16-30 seconds. This was followed by a recovery period of 1 minute and

30 seconds of passive rest. The above interval was repeated for 7 sets. The SM

group then performed a cool down on the Matrix T7xe treadmill at a pace that

allowed participants to remain at an RPE of 4-5 for 5 minutes.

Statistical analysis

The independent variable in the present study was the gorup to which

subjects were randomly allocated (SM or AM), and the dependent variables were the

absolute change (post- minus pre-test values) in each of the outcome measures

(change in aerobic fitness and strength). Thus between group comparisons where

conducted examining the effect of the independent variable upon the dependent

variables. Assumptions of normality of distribution were met when the data was

tested using the Kolomogorov-Smirnov test (34). Demographic characteristics and

change in aerobic fitness and strength were compared using an independent t-test in

order to examine between group differences. 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were

calculated in addition to within participant ES using Cohens d (14) which allowed for

comparison of the magnitude of effects between groups. An ES of 0.20-0.49 was

considered as small, 0.50-0.79 as moderate and >0.80 as large. Statistical analysis


was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 20; IBM Corp.,

Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK) and significance was accepted at p<0.05.



1. Participants Baseline Data

Baseline participant demographics, aerobic fitness and strength are shown in Table

1. There was a significant between groups difference in body mass (t(14) = -2.249, p =

0.041), and both YMCAhr (t(14) = 3.102, p = 0.008) and YMCA (t(14) = -3.102,

p = 0.008) though all other demographic variables did not differ between groups at

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT


2. Aerobic Fitness

Table 2 shows mean changes, 95%CIs, and ESs for aerobic fitness

outcomes. 95%CIs indicated that both groups significantly improved in both YMCAhr

and YMCA test. Significant between group differences were found for

aerobic fitness in both the YMCAhr (t(14) = -2.88, p = 0.01) as well as the YMCA

test (t(14) = -2.88, p = 0.01). ESs for aerobic fitness changes were

considered large for both groups.

3. Strength

Table 3 shows mean changes, 95%CIs, and ESs for strength outcomes.
95%CIs indicated that both groups significantly improved in predicted 1RM. There

was no between group difference for strength changes (t(14) = 0.324, p = 0.75). ESs

for strength changes were considered large for both groups.



The aim of this study was to examine the effect of exercise mode in HIIT

upon selected measures of aerobic fitness and strength in powerlifters and

strongman athletes. The results suggest that aerobic fitness as well as strength can

be simultaneously improved using HIIT irrespective of exercise mode. The

hypothesis was partly support as both the AM and SM groups improved significantly

in aerobic fitness and strength, however, changes in aerobic fitness where

significantly greater for the AM group. These results further support the idea that

sufficiently high effort may be able to elicit physiological responses which are largely

independent of exercise modality (i.e. strength improvements from an aerobic mode

of exercise, or aerobic improvements from a strength mode of exercise; 23). This


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

appears to be the first study to directly compare aerobic and resistance training

modes for both aerobic fitness and strength changes whilst attempting to match for

effort and volume.

That both AM and SM groups significantly improved in aerobic fitness is

supportive of our hypothesis that where intensity of effort is controlled similar

adaptations are likely. It is unsurprising that the AM group improved in this outcome

as a recent meta-analysis supports large aerobic fitness improvements from HIIT

interventions using aerobic exercise modes such as cycling (48). However, previous

authors have suggested that resistance training appears unlikely to improve aerobic

fitness (35). Thus the large significant improvement for the SM group is interesting.

Several recent reviews have concluded that aerobic adaptations can indeed occur as

a result of resistance training (51,69), particularly if the intensity of effort is sufficiently

high (69). Butcher et al. (12) have reported high RPE values for resistance training
based HIIT and other recent work has suggested that HIIT interventions including

resistance training based modes can improve aerobic fitness (16,65,15,10). The

large improvements in aerobic fitness in the SM group in the present study might

therefore be a result of the high intensity of effort employed. Indeed in the present

study participants trained to a value of 8-9 on the CR10 RPE scale. Whilst not

momentary failure, it is likely that participants were at close proximity to maximal

effort and thus enhanced the acute stimuli that might impact upon aerobic

adaptations (e.g. increased local oxygen utilization, lactate production, AMPK

activation, peripheral vascular shear stress; 69).

Prior mechanistic research offers insght and allows speculation as to why

similar adaptations may have occured. For example, AMPK plays an important role

in inducing mitochondrial biogenesis (i.e., mitochondrial proliferation and up

regulation of mitochondrial enzymes; 57,75), stimulating slow twitch fiber phenotype

transformation (42), and inducing formation of oxidative properties in type IIx fibers

(3). Furthermore, higher effort exercise (i.e. to failure) has been evidenced to result in


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

greater drop in ATP:AMP ratio in addition to metabolite production when compared

with lower effort exercise (30). AMPK is active independent of modality as long as

effort is high due to its role as a key sensor of cellular energy requirements (i.e. a

change in ATP:AMP ratio; 32,33). During high effort exercise, the ATP:AMP ratio is

decreased due to the increased rate of ATP use (64,60,66) and thus AMPK is

activated. Recruitment of type IIx muscle fibers during high effort muscular

contraction produces greater depletion of ATP due to the fibers greater myosin

ATPase activity (60). Further, AMPK activation is also greatest in type IIx fibers after

exercise (41). As such, there is a molecular basis for both modalities producing

aerobic adaptation when effort is sufficiently high.

However, though aerobic fitness ESs were large for both groups, the AM

group had significantly larger improvements in aerobic fitness. Even trained

individuals may experience larger than expected improvements when introduced to a

different training stimulus, especially when that stimulus nature differs significantly

from their usual training (26). Since the present participants were not accustomed to

a HIIT cycle task this might explain why ESs were larger than those for the SM


Both groups also showed significant improvements in strength with large ESs,

and in contrast to aerobic fitness, there were no between group differences. We

might consider that any strength adaptations may have been a result of the pre-

existing, and continuing resistance training protocols. However, if this is the case

then it appears that neither SM or AM HIIT hindered strength adaptations. Since

participants were all well-trained, competitive powerlifters or strongman athletes we

might consider that there was likely only a limited margin for potenital strength

increases. As such we should not discount that HIIT protocols served to further

enhance strength adaptations. Previous research supports that high effort resistance

training performed as HIIT can result in strength adaptations (10). Whilst

improvements in strength as a result of aerobic based exercise modes, particularly


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

higher effort protocols, have been reported they are considered to be greatest in

untrained and older populations (37,54,53). We might consider that aerobic exercise,

if performed to a high effort, might provide a stimulus akin to the performance of low

load resistance training which evidence suggests is efficacious in increasing strength

and hypertrophy when also performed to a high effort (i.e. momentary failure;

62,61,50). The size principle would suggest that during fatiguing contractions effort

increases and so too does motor unit recruitment (1,17,13,70). This may be a

mechanism through which high effort aerobic exercise modes can increase strength

though other stimuli such as metabolic stress and cellular swelling might be

responsible (55).

Though there appear to differences in magntiude and selective protein

responses to resistance training and aerobic modalities (possibily due to studies

poorly controlling and matching effort between modes) both active anabolic pathways
(55). For example, both elevate Akt-mTOR-p70S6K pathway phosphsorylation and

myofibrillar protein synthesis in untrained persons, though this elavation is more

prounounced and prolonged in resistance training and after a training intervention


there is little stimulus from aerobic modes (71). Aerobic modalities in prior molecular

studies though have not typically been performed to a very high intensity of effort.

However, some have combined aerobic mode exercise with vascular occlusion thus

increasing the effort required and under these conditions mitogen-activated protein

kinase (MAPK) signalling pathways have been found to increase in their

phosphorylation (52). Again, this suggests a molecular basis for strength and

hypertrophic adaptations to occur from both modes with greater congruence of

responses when effort is high.

The similar results from both AM and SM groups present several potential

practical implications. The significant improvements observed in the present study

suggest that HIIT can be an effective, efficient and flexible training protocol for both

trained and untrained persons. Flexible is to be interpreted as meaning that exercise


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

modality does not appear to have a meaningful effect on changes in aerobic fitness

or strength in response to HIIT. Instead, utilizing a high effort emerges as the major

factor. Powerlifters and strongman athletes as well as other athletes, coaches, and

trained individuals wishing to employ or perform HIIT may therefore choose a range

of different exercise modes based on personal preference, accessibility or

availability. For untrained individuals the implications are also considerable. Not only

does HIIT represent an approach which might overcome time related barriers (8) but,

since availability of equipment can also be a barrier to exercise (46), flexibility in how

HIIT might be employed might serve to overcome this (23). However, participants in

the present study were well trained strength-sports athletes all proficient in the

technical elements of the squat and deadlift. Untrained persons unfamiliar with these

exercises might be exposed to a higher risk of injury if undertaking them without

supervision/coaching and/or to such a high degree of effort. Further research is

needed comparing different modes of HIIT in untrained persons and with alternative

resistance training exercises (i.e. resistance machines).

The strengths and limitations of the present study should be acknowledged.


Firstly, this study adds to the relatively sparse literature that has examined

competitive powerlifters/strongman athletes. Further, that large ESs were found in


this population for all outcomes suggests that similar results might be possible in

other populations , and greater results in less well-trained participants. However, the

use of this population presented a limitation in that predictive measures of both

aerobic fitness and strength were only available to be examined. This was for

logistical reasons as participants were recruited from, tested, and trained at the gym

they were members of; thus equipment available for testing was limited. A step

based submaximal test was utilized as participants were unable to travel for lab

based direct measures of aerobic fitness (i.e. ). Predicted appeared

unusually high in our sample (baseline range 62.61 to 75.21 ml.kg.min-1) compared


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

with other studies of strength based sports athletes using direct measures of aerobic

capacity (~41.9 to 50.8 ml.kg.min-1; 31). This may be a consequence of our test over

predicting in our sample. Further, in order to have participants perform a

strength test they were nave to (i.e. was not being performed in either their current

training or used in the interventions), the leg extension was utilized. However,

participants high baseline strength levels prohibited performance of a 1RM and so a

4-6RM was performed and predicted 1RM calculated. It should also be noted that,

though the testing methods have been shown to be valid and reliable, we did not

collect our own reliability data (6,11). Lastly, participants were reluctant to participate

if this required cessation of their current training. Thus participants also continued

with their current training protocols and, though they were instructed to not make any

changes to these, their inclusion may have influenced the results.

In conclusion, exercise modality does not appear to have a meaningful effect

upon improvements in aerobic fitness and strength in response to HIIT. The results

of this study further support the importance of properly assessing and ensuring high

effort is reached in HIIT as it appears to be a primary contributor to aerobic and


strength improvements. The differences in aerobic improvements between the two

groups suggest that an aerobic mode of exercise may cause greater aerobic

improvements in aerobically untrained individuals following a HIIT protocol.

Nonetheless, the significant aerobic and strength improvements made by both


groups suggest that strength and aerobic fitness can be improved simultaneously if

high to maximum effort is reached, regardless of the mode of exercise.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT


The results from this study suggest that persons engaged in strength sports

(powerlifting, strongman, etc.) can include alongside their current training programs a

HIIT intervention and improve both aerobic fitness and strength. This appears to be

the case whether the HIIT intervention is using a resistance training or aerobic

training exercise mode. Thus athletes and coaches can employ flexibility in their

program designs in order to accomodate other factors. For example, personal

preference may be a factor affecting adherence and so the choice of mode might be

dictated by this. In addition, injury might prohibit the performance of a particular

exercise and so flexibility in exercise modality may permit persons to continue

training to acheive their desired goals whilst switching the exercise mode. Further, if

such adaptations are possible in a well trained population such as that examined

here, then these considerations may also apply to untrained persons.


1. Adam A, and De Luca CJ. Recruitment order of motor units in human vastus

lateralis muscle is maintained during fatiguing contractions. J Neurophysiol

90(5): 2919-2927, 2003.


2. Alahmadi M. High-intensity Interval Training and Obesity. J Obes 4: 211,


3. Arany Z, Lebrasseur N, Morris C, Smith E, Yang W, Ma Y, Chin S,

Spiegelman BM. The transcriptional coactivator PGC-1 [beta] drives the

formation of oxidative type IIX fibers in skeletal muscle. Cell Metab 5(1):35-

46, 2007.

4. Baechle T, and Earle R. Essentials of strength training and conditioning.

Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics, 2008.

5. Bartlett J, Close G, MacLaren D, Gregson W, Drust B. and Morton J. High-

intensity interval running is perceived to be more enjoyable than moderate-


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

intensity continuous exercise: Implications for exercise adherence. J Sports

Sci 29(6): 547-553, 2011.

6. Beutner F, Ubrich R, Zachariae S, Engel C, Sandri M, Teren A, Gielen S.

Validation of a brief step-test protocol for estimation of peak oxygen uptake.

Eur J Prev Cardiol 22(4): 503-512, 2015.

7. Berning, JM, Adams, KJ, Climstein, M, and Stamford, BA. Metabolic

demands of junkyard training: Pushing and pulling a motor vehicle. J

Strength Cond Res 21: 853856, 2007.

8. Biddle SJH, and Batterham AM. High-intensity interval exercise training for

public health: a big HIT or shall we HIT it on the head? Int J Behav Nutr Phys

Act 12: 95, 2015.

9. Borg G. Borgs Rating of Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, Ill:

Human Kinetics, 1998.

10. Buckley S, Knapp K, Lackie A, Lewry C, Horvey K, Benko C, Trinh J, Butcher

S. Multimodal high-intensity interval training increases muscle function and

metabolic performance in females. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 40(11): 1157-


1162, 2015.

11. Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, Mouser JG, Counts BR, Dankel SJ,

Loenneke JP. Determining strength: A case for multiple methods of

measurement. Sports Med Epub ahead of print, 2016.


12. Butcher S, Judd T, Benko C, Horvey K, Pshyk A. Relative intensity of two

types of crossfit exercise: acute circuit and high-intensity interval exercise. J

Fit Res 4(2): 3-15, 2015

13. Carpinelli R. The size principle and a critical analysis of the unsubstantiated

heavier-is-better recommendation for resistance training. J Exerc Sci Fit 6(2):

67-86, 2008.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

14. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159, 1992.

15. Cook A, Hastings B, Gottschall J. Time in 85-100% heart rate zone increases

lean body mass and Vo2 Max in NCAA division 1 soccer players. J Fit Res

3(1): 12, 2014.

16. Cook K, Cathcart A, Scott R, Easton C. High Intensity Interval Training

Increases Aerobic and Anaerobic Capacity In Collegiate Female Soccer

Players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 698-699, 2010.

17. Denny-Brown D, Pennybacker JB. Fibrillation and fasciculation in voluntary

muscle. Brain 61(3): 311-312, 1938.

18. Dohoney P. Prediction of one repetition maximum (1-RM) strength from a 4-6

RM and a 7-10 RM submaximal strength test in healthy young adult males. J

Exerc Physiol Online 5(3): 54-59, 2002.

19. Easton C, Scott R, Cathcart A. A Novel High Intensity Interval Training

Intervention Increases Aerobic and Anaerobic Capacity In Soccer

Players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 698-699, 2010.

20. Eston R, and Evans HJL. The Validity of Submaximal Ratings of Perceived

Exertion to Predict One Repetition Maximum. J Sports Sci Med 8(1): 567-573,


21. Fisher J, Steele J, Smith J, and Bruce-Low S. Evidence based resistance

training recommendations. Med Sport 15(3): 147- 162, 2011


22. Fisher J, and Smith D. Attempting to better define intensity for muscular

performance: is it all wasted effort? Eur J Appl Physiol 112(12): 4183-4185,


23. Fisher J, and Steele J. Questioning the Resistance/Aerobic Training

Dichotomy: A Commentary on Physiological Adaptations Determined by

Effort Rather than Exercise Modality. J Hum Kinet 44(1): 137-142, 2014.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

24. Fisher J, Smith D, and Steele J. High- and Low-load resistance training;

Interpretation and Practical Application of Current Research findings. Sports

Med Epub ahead of print, 2016.

25. Fry A. The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fibre

Adaptations. Sports Med 34(10): 663-679, 2004.

26. Gamble P. Oxon: Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon: Strength and

conditioning for team sports, 2010.

27. Gibala M, and McGee S. Metabolic Adaptations to Short-term High-Intensity

Interval Training. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 36(2): 58-63, 2008.

28. Giessing J, Fisher J, Steele J, Rothe F, Raubold K, and Eichmann B. The

effects of low volume resistance training with and without advanced

techniques in trained participants. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 56(3): 249-258,

29. Gillen J, and Gibala M. Is high-intensity interval training a time-efficient

exercise strategy to improve health and fitness? Appl Physiol Nutr Metab

39(3): 409-412, 2014.


30. Gorostiaga EM, Navarro-Amezqueta I, Calbet JAL, Hellsten Y, Cusso R,

Guerrero M, Granados C, Gonzalez-Izal M, Ibanez J, and Izquierdo M.


Energy metabolism during repeated sets of leg press exercise leading to

failure or not. PLoS One 7(7):e40621, 2012.


31. Hakkinen K, Alen M, and Komi PV. Neuromuscular, anaerobic, and aerobic

performance characteristics of elite power athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol

53(2):97-105, 1984.

32. Hardie DG, Salt IP, Hawkley SA, and Davies SP. AMP-activated protein

kinase: and ultrasensitive system for monitoring cellular energy change.

Biochem J 338(3):717-722, 1999.

33. Hardie DG, and Sakamoto K. AMPK: A key sensor of fuel and energy status

in skeletal muscle. Physiology 21:48-60, 2006.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

34. Hazewinkel, M. . Encyclopaedia of mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 1997.

35. Jung AP. The impact of resistance training on distance running performance.

Sport Med 33(7): 539-552, 2003.

36. Jung ME, Bourne JE, Little JP. Where does HIT fit? An examination of the

affective response to high-intervals in comparison to continuous moderate-

and vigorous-intensity exercise in the exercise intensity-affect continuum.

PLoS One 8(9): e114541. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114541, 2014.

37. Konopka A, and Harber M. Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy After Aerobic

Exercise Training. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 42(2): 53-61, 2014.

38. Kravitz L. High-Intensity Interval Training. 1st ed. [ebook] Available at:


[Accessed 5 Jan. 2016], 2014.

39. Lane A, Jackson A, and Terry P. Preferred Modality Influences on Exercise-

Induced Mood Changes. J Sports Sci Med 4(2): 195-200, 2005.

40. Laursen P, and Jenkins D. The Scientific Basis for High-Intensity Interval

Training. Sports Med 32(1): 53-73, 2002.

41. Lee-Young RS, Canny BJ, Myers DE, and McConell GK. AMPK activation is

fiber type specific in human skeletal muscle: effects of exercise and short-

term exercise training. J Appl Physiol107:283-289, 2008.


42. Lin J, Wu H, Tarr PT, Zhang CY, Wu Z, Boss O, Michael LF, Puigserver P,

Isotani E, Olson EN, Lowell BB, Bassel-Duby R, and Spiegleman BM.

Transcriptional co-activator PGC-1 alpha drives the formation of slow-twitch

muscle fibers. Nature 418(6899):797-801, 2002.

43. Lundberg T, Fernandez-Gonzalo R, Gustafsson T, and Tesch P. Aerobic

exercise does not compromise muscle hypertrophy response to short-term

resistance training. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol 114(1): 81-

89, 2013.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

44. Lundberg TR, Fernandez-Gonzalo R, Tesch PA, Rullman E, and Gustafsson

T. Aerobic exercise augments muscle transcriptome pro- file of resistance

exercise. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 310: R1279R1287, 2016.

45. Martinez N, Kilpatrick MW, Salomon K, Jung ME, and Little JP. Affective and

enjoyment responses to high-intensity interval training in overweight-to-obese

and insufficiently active adults. J Sport Exerc Psychol 37(2): 138-149, 2015.

46. Martnez-Lemos R, Puig-Ribera A, and Garca-Garca O. Perceived Barriers

to Physical Activity and Related Factors in Spanish University

Students. OJPM 4(4): 164-174, 2014.

47. McArdle W, Katch F, and Katch V. Philadelphia: Essentials of exercise

physiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000.

48. Milanovic Z, Sporis G, and Weston M. Effectiveness of high-intensity interval

training (HIT) and continuous endurance training for VO2max improvements:

A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Sports Med

45(10): 1469-1481, 2015.

49. Moro T, Marcolini G, Gottardi A, Reggiani C, and Paoli A. Local and systemic

effects of high intensity interval resistance training (HIIRT) in a population of

older adults. In. Proceeding of the Physiological Society, Human Physiology


Abstracts, Ageing and Degeneration, Edinburgh, UK, 2015.

50. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazaram N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J,

Baechler BL, Baker SK, and Phillips, S.M. Neither load nor systemic

hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength

gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol Epub ahead of print,


51. Ozaki H, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, and Abe T. Resistance training induced

increase in VO2max in young and older subjects. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act

10(2): 107-116, 2013.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

52. Ozaki H, Kakigi R, Kobayashi H, Loenneke JP, Abe T, and Naito H. Effects of

walking combined with restricted leg blood flow on mTOR and MAPK

signalling in young men. Acta Physiol 211: 97-106, 2014.

53. Ozaki H, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, and Abe T. Cycle training induces

muscle hypertrophy and strength gain: strategies and mechanisms (Review).

Acta Physiol Hung 102(1): 1-22, 2015.

54. Ozaki H, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, and Abe T. Possibility of leg muscle

hypertrophy by ambulation in older adults: a brief review. Clin Interv Aging 8:

369-375, 2013.

55. Ozaki H, Loenneke JP, Buckner SL, and Abe T. Muscle growth across a

variety of exercise modalities and intensities: Contributions of mechanical and

metabolic stimuli. Med Hypotheses 88: 22-26, 2016.

56. Paoli A, Moro T, Marcolin G, Neri M, Bianco A, Palma A, and Grimaldi K.

High-intensity interval resistance training (HIIRT) influences resisting energy

expenditure and respiratory ratio in non-dieting individuals. J Transl Med

10(1):237, 2012.

57. Reznick RM, and Shuman GL. The role of AMP-activated protein kinase in

mitochondrial biogenesis. J Physiol 574(1):33-39, 2006.


58. Ritchie C. Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE). J Physiother 58(1): 62, 2012.

59. Sakamoto A, and Sinclair P. Muscle activations under varying lifting speeds

and intensities during bench press. Eur J Appl Physiol 112(3): 1015-1025,


60. Sargeant AJ. Structural and functional determinants of muscle power. Exp

Physiol 92(2):323-331, 2007.

61. Schoenfeld B, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, and Sonmez GT.

Effects of low- versus high-load resistance training on muscle strength and


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 29(10): 2954-2963,


62. Schoenfeld B, Wilson JM, Lowery RP, Krieger JW. Muscular adaptations in

low-versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci

20:1-10, 2016.

63. Schoenfeld B, and Dawes J. High-Intensity Interval Training: Applications for

General Fitness Training. Strength Cond J 31(6): 44-46, 2009.

64. Hultman E, and Sjoholm H. Energy metabolism and contraction force of

human skeletal muscle In Situ during electrical stimulation. J Physiol 345:525-

532, 1983.

65. Smith M, Sommer A, Starkoff B, and Devor S. Crossfit-Based High-Intensity

Power Training Improves Maximal Aerobic Fitness and Body Composition. J

Strength Cond Res 27(11): 3159-3172, 2013.

66. Spriet LL, Soderlund K, Bergstrom M, and Hultman E. Anaerobic energy

release in skeletal muscle during electrical stimulation in men. J Appl Physiol

62(2):611-615, 1987.

67. Steele J. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within

resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether? Br J Sports Med


48(22): 1586-1588, 2014.

68. Steele J, and Fisher J. Scientific Rigour: a Heavy or Light Load to


Carry? Sports Med 44(1): 141-142, 2013.

69. Steele J, Fisher J, McGuff D, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. Resistance Training to

Momentary Muscular Failure Improves Cardiovascular Fitness in Humans: A

Review of Acute Physiological responses and Chronic Adaptations. J Exerc

Phys.15: 53-80, 2012.

70. Westad C, Westgaard RH, and De Luca, CJ. Motor unit recruitment and

derecruitment induced by brief increase in contraction amplitude of the

human trapezius muscle. J Physiol 552(2): 645-656, 2003.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effects of exercise modality during HIIT

71. Wilkinson SB, Phillips SM, Atherton PJ, Patel R, Yarasheski KE, Tarnopolsky

MA, and Rennie MJ. Differential effects of resistance and endurance exercise

in the fed state on signalling molecule phosphorylation and protein synthesis

in human muscle. J Physiol 586(15):3701-3717, 2008.

72. Willardson J, and Burkett L. The Effect of Different Rest Intervals Between

Sets on Volume Components and Strength Gains. J Strength Cond Res

22(1): 146-152, 2008.

73. Wilson JM, Marin PJ, Rhea MR, Wilson SMC, Loenneke JP, and Anderson

JC. Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic

and resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 26(8): 2293-2307, 2012.

74. Winwood, PW, Keogh, JWL, Harris, NK. The strength and conditioning

practices of strongman competitors. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3118-3128,

75. Wu Z, Puigserver P, Andersson U, Zhang C, Adelmant G, Mootha V, Troy A,

Ciniti S, Lowell B, Scarpulla RC, and Spiegelman BM. Mechanisms

controlling mitochondrial biogenesis and respiration through the thermogenic


coactivator PGC-1. Cell 98(1):115-124, 1999.



There are no potential conflicts of interest that the authors of this study are

aware of. No funding was received in support of this study. The results of the present

study do not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors or the NSCA.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 1 Baseline participant demographics

AM (n =8) SM (n =8) p
Age (y) 222 242 NS
Stature (cm) 1805 1827 NS
Body mass (kg) 867 10014 0.04
Training Experience Ratio 1:4 1:4 NA

Training years 31 31 NS

YMCAhr (bpm) 106.67.5 95.96.3 0.008

YMCA (ml.kg.min-1) 66.53.2 71.12.7 0.008

Predicted 1RM (kg) 176.413.3 178.59.5 NS

Note: Results are means SD; NA, not applicable; NS, nonsignificant (analysed using

independent t-test); AM, Aerobic Mode; SM, Strength Mode; RAT, Resistance & Aerobic
Training; RT, Resistance Training.

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 2 Aerobic Fitness changes

Outcome AM SM
Change 95% CI ES Change 95% CI ES

YMCAhr - -16.3 to - -2.8 -6.54 -9.8 to - -1.6

(bpm) 12.64.5 8.8 3.1

YMCA 5.32 3.7 to 2.6 2.81.4 1.6 to 2.0

(ml.kg.min-1) 6.8 4.0
Note: Results are mean SD, ES was calculated using Cohens d, Cohen 1992; p values for

between group effects using independent t-test; CI, confidence interval; SM, Strength Mode;

AM, Aerobic Mode; YMCAhr, YMCA Heart Rate,

Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

1 Table 3 Strength changes

Test AM SM

Change 95% CI ES Change 95% CI ES

Predicted 1RM 7.23.7 4.1 to 1.9 6.63.5 3.7 to 1.9
(kg) 10.3 9.6
2 Note: Results are mean SD, ES was calculated using Cohens d, Cohen 1992; p

3 values for between group effects using independent t-test. CI, confidence interval;

4 AM, Aerobic Mode; SM, Strength Mode; 1RM, 1 Repetition Maximum.


Copyright 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association