Molina-Hidalgo · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2020 · partially randomized controlled trial · n=73

Influence of daily beer or ethanol consumption on physical fitness in response to a high-intensity interval training program. The BEER-HIIT study.

Cited 29 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Controlled trial with participant self-selection into alcohol vs alcohol-free preference arms prior to sub-randomization

PubMed 32460793 · doi:10.1186/s12970-020-00356-7 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Healthy young adults (n = 73, 35 females, age 24 ± 6 years) were allocated into five groups. One group served as a non-training control (n = 15). The remaining participants chose whether they preferred alcohol or alcohol-free beverages and were subsequently randomized to: (1) alcoholic beer (5.4%, n = 13), (2) sparkling water with vodka (5.4% ethanol, n = 14), (3) sparkling water (0.0%, n = 16), or (4) alcohol-free beer (0.0%, n = 15). Training groups performed a 10-week (2 days/week) HIIT program. Men consumed 330 ml at lunch and 330 ml at dinner; women consumed 330 ml at dinner (at least Monday to Friday). Outcomes assessed before and after were absolute and relative VO2max, maximal heart rate, total test duration, hand grip strength, and four types of vertical jumps.

What was found

HIIT induced significant improvements in absolute and relative VO2max and total test duration (all p < 0.05) across all training groups, with clinical improvements in hand grip strength. These adaptations were not influenced by beer or alcohol intake. No changes in vertical jumps occurred in any group. The abstract reports no numerical values or effect sizes.

Why it matters

These findings suggest that moderate regular consumption of beer or equivalent alcohol during the week does not hinder cardiorespiratory or grip strength improvements from low-frequency HIIT in healthy young adults.

Limits

Allocation between alcohol and non-alcohol tracks was based on participant choice rather than full randomization. Subgroup sample sizes were small (13–16 participants per arm). The abstract lacks numerical baseline/post-intervention data, exact effect sizes, and precision estimates.

Cited by