↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Time Efficiency of Sprint vs. High-Intensity Interval Training in Reducing Abdominal Visceral Fat in Obese Young Women: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
951 X users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing Time Efficiency of Sprint vs. High-Intensity Interval Training in Reducing Abdominal Visceral Fat in Obese Young Women: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.01048
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomas K. Tong, Haifeng Zhang, Hongru Shi, Yang Liu, Jingwen Ai, Jinlei Nie, Zhaowei Kong

Abstract

Introduction: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is an emerging lifestyle intervention strategy for controlling obesity. HIIT consisted of brief all-out supramaximal sprint intervals was termed as sprint interval training (SIT). This study was designed to examine the time-efficient characteristics of SIT in reducing abdominal visceral fat. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the specific adaptations of SIT (80 × 6 s all-out cycle sprints interspersed with 9 s passive recovery) with those resulting from a HIIT regimen with training volume relatively higher (repeated 4 min bouts of cycling at 90% V ˙ O2max alternated with 3 min rest, until the work of 400KJ was achieved), and with those of nonexercising control counterparts (CON). Forty-six obese young women (body fat percentage ≥30) received either SIT (n = 16), HIIT (n = 16), or no training (n = 14), 3-4 sessions per week, for 12 weeks. The abdominal visceral fat area (AVFA) and abdominal subcutaneous fat area (ASFA) of the participants were measured through computed tomography scans pre-intervention and post-intervention. Total fat mass and the fat mass of the android, gynoid, and trunk regions were assessed through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results: Following the intervention, abdominal visceral and subcutaneous fat were reduced markedly (p < 0.05). The reduction in AVFA (-6.31, -9.7 cm2) was not different between SIT and HIIT (p > 0.05), while the reduction in ASFA (-17.4, -40.7 cm2) in SIT was less than that in HIIT (p < 0.05). Less reduction in the fat mass of the trunk (-1.2, -2.0 kg) region was also found in SIT, while the reductions in fat percentage (-1.9%, -2.0%), total fat mass (-2.0, -2.8 kg), and fat mass of the android (-0.2, -0.2 kg), and gynoid (-0.4, -0.3 kg) regions did not differ between the two regimes (p > 0.05). In contrast, the increase in V ˙ O2max was significant greater following the SIT than HIIT (p < 0.01). No variable changed in CON. Conclusion: Such findings suggest that the lower training load and exercise time commitments of the SIT regime could optimize the time-efficiency advantage of the traditional HIIT, facilitating the abdominal visceral fat reduction in obese young women.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 951 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Researcher 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 59 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 26 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 67 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 216. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#180,343
of 25,579,912 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#97
of 15,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,637
of 342,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#5
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,579,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.