Fig 1.
Study selection process.
Table 1.
Summary of included studies.
Table 2.
Risk of bias assessment of included studies.
Table 3.
Effects of HIIT vs. MICT on body composition, aerobic capacity, lipid metabolism, glucose metabolism.
Table 4.
Results of subgroup analysis.
Fig 2.
Meta-analysis for the comparison of HIIT vs. MICT for VO2max with subgroup analyses for studies employing DHTI < 2 min, DHTI ≥2 min than MICT.
The positive value of X axis indicated that HIIT was more effective than MICT in improving VO2max. Lunt et al.-1 and Lunt et al.-2 were two different HIIT methods were used in one article. Martins et al.-1 and Martins et al.-2 were two different HIIT methods were used in one article. DHTI< 2 min: HIIT training interval < 2 min, DHTI ≥2 min: HIIT training interval ≥ 2 min.
Fig 3.
Meta-analysis for the comparison of HIIT vs. MICT for VO2max with subgroup analyses for studies employing H = M, H<M and ? than MICT.
The positive value of X axis indicated that HIIT was more effective than MICT in improving VO2max. Lunt et al.-1 and Lunt et al.-2 were two different HIIT methods were used in one article. Martins et al.-1 and Martins et al.-2 were two different HIIT methods were used in one article. H = M: Energy expenditure of HIIT equal to MICT;H<M: Energy expenditure of HIIT less than MICT; ?:Not mentioned in the article and the results can not be used to calculate the energy consumption.