Way · Journal of science and medicine in sport 2019 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=?

The effect of high Intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on arterial stiffness and 24h blood pressure responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cited 122 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise intervention studies comparing HIIT to MICT

PubMed 30803498 · doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2018.09.228 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on central arterial stiffness and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure. Eligible studies included exercise training interventions lasting at least 4 weeks comparing both HIIT and MICT arms and assessing arterial stiffness (pulse wave velocity, augmentation index) or 24-hour blood pressure measures.

What was found

HIIT was significantly superior to MICT for reducing night-time diastolic blood pressure (effect size [ES]: -0.456, 95% CI: -0.826 to -0.086 mmHg; P=0.016). Near-significant trends favoring HIIT over MICT were observed for reductions in daytime systolic blood pressure (ES: -0.349, 95% CI: -0.740 to 0.041 mmHg; P=0.079) and daytime diastolic blood pressure (ES: -0.349, 95% CI: -0.717 to 0.020 mmHg; P=0.063). No significant differences between modalities were found for other blood pressure measures or central arterial stiffness outcomes.

Why it matters

This review suggests that HIIT may provide modest incremental benefits over traditional continuous exercise for nocturnal diastolic blood pressure control, though it appears equivalent to MICT for improving central arterial stiffness.

Limits

The abstract does not disclose the total number of included studies, overall participant count, or participant baseline health status (e.g., normotensive vs. hypertensive). Effect estimates show relatively wide confidence intervals, and the clinical relevance of the modest effect sizes remains unclear.

Cited by