Personalized Moderate Intensity Exercise Training Combined With High Intensity Interval

It is well established that regular physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF)
training confers numerous health benefits and that a low level of CRF is a risk factor for
coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. It is generally accepted
that CRF can be improved with the implementation of a regular aerobic exercise training
program following standardized guidelines. However, it has also been shown that not all
individuals respond positively to such exercise, indeed there is considerable individual
variability in training adaptations including so-termed 'non-responders' and, in some
instances, 'adverse responders'. This variability in training responsiveness is not well
understood and may be attributable to various factors including absence of a set definition
in the literature for incidence of response and lack of an individualized approach to the
exercise prescription.

It has been purported that a more individualized approach to the exercise prescription may
enhance training efficacy and limit training unresponsiveness. For instance, it has been
acknowledged as far back as the late 1970s that utilizing a relative percent method (i.e., %
heart rate reserve [HRR]) to establish exercise intensity fails to account for individual
metabolic responses to exercise. Nevertheless, the relative percent concept remains the gold
standard recommendation for exercise intensity. It is both plausible and practical to think
that an intensity set based on an individual's threshold measurement (i.e. ventilatory
threshold) will not only encourage more positive physiological adaptations, but may account
for some of the variability in training responsiveness by taking into consideration
individual metabolic differences.

Additionally, high intensity interval training (HIIT) has emerged as a potential time
efficient strategy for health promotion. Current recommended guidelines of 150 minutes of
moderate physical activity per week is reduced by half to 75 minutes if the week's activity
is done at a vigorous intensity. It has been demonstrated that HIIT, when compared to
moderate intensity continuous training (MICT), has resulted in equal or superior improvements
in VO2max, insulin action and sensitivity, endothelial function, systolic blood pressure, hip
and waist circumference and lipid oxidation. The American College of Sports Medicine suggests
considering incorporating interval training after a period of initial conditioning (typically
2-3 months) intermittently to avoid excessive orthopedic stress. Additionally, HIIT may
require initial supervision in untrained and high risk individuals, and may transiently
increase the risk of cardiac events in people with underlying undiagnosed CVD. Therefore, it
seems pragmatic and consistent with current recommendations to combine the two types of
training to achieve the greatest positive changes in cardiovascular and metabolic health.

It has been common practice to quantify training responsiveness based on absolute changes,
but this method fails to take into consideration biological variability (normal day-to-day
biological fluctuations) and measurement error of the equipment. Consequently, currently
there is not a clear consensus on best practice to prescribe a customized exercise
intervention that takes into consideration individual characteristics and diagnostic
information. Furthermore, it may be that a personalized definition of biological variability
is warranted. This is congruent with the line of reasoning that a more individualized
approach to the exercise prescription may enhance training efficacy and limit training
unresponsiveness. Simply put - if we are looking at exercise prescription (i.e., the front
end) from an individualized perspective, it would also make sense to look at training
responsiveness (i.e., the back end) from an individualized perspective as well.

Furthermore, classification and interpretation of training responsiveness may require a
holistic view that integrates all exercise training outcomes. For example, in a recent study
an adverse response in one single measure rarely resulted in higher overall risk of CVD. In
fact, 10-year CVD risk increased in only three individuals (out of 332 individuals) as
highlighted in this investigation. This finding has practical implications suggesting that
although some individuals may have adverse or nonresponse cardiometabolic responses to
exercise training, this may not always result in increased CVD risk and exercise may benefit
these participants in different ways, such as improved cardiorespiratory fitness. Indeed, in
the previously mentioned study, more than 40% (9/22) of 'adverse responders' concurrently
increased cardiorespiratory fitness levels by 10% or more. Higher levels of cardiorespiratory
fitness have been offered as an antidote toward other risk factors. Moreover, the literature
suggests a 15% reduction in mortality for a 10% improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness.
Taken together, it may be unintentionally misleading to categorize someone as an "adverse
responder or non-responder to exercise" based on a single cardiometabolic factor when it is
well known that regular exercise training confers a myriad of benefits. Clearly, the overall
topic of training responsiveness to exercise warrants much additional study.

45 low-to-moderate risk, sedentary men and women will be recruited and randomized to one of
the following arms:

- MICT + HIIT exercise program (N = 15)

- MICT exercise program (N = 15)

- non-exercise control group (N = 15)

Inclusion Criteria:

- Considered low to moderate risk for cardiovascular disease based on the American
College of Sports medicine guidelines

- Currently sedentary (participating in less than 30 minutes of moderate intensity
physical activity on at least three days a week)

- Resided at an altitude of 2300 meters for at least the last 6 months

Exclusion Criteria:

- Any known sign, symptom, or diagnosed cardiovascular, pulmonary, metabolic, or similar
disease