Liang · Frontiers in public health 2025 · systematic review and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials · n=13 RCTs (503 participants)

A time-efficient public health strategy: a systematic review and meta-regression on the comparable and dose-independent effects of sprint interval training vs. moderate-intensity continuous training for metabolic health.

Cited 1 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials

PubMed 41567768 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1708893 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines evaluated randomized controlled trials (lasting at least 2 weeks) comparing sprint interval training (SIT) against moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in adults with metabolic dysfunction. Primary outcomes included HbA1c, HOMA-IR, and fasting glucose. Univariable meta-regression evaluated potential dose-response moderators including intervention duration, sprint volume, and weekly metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-minutes.

What was found

Across 13 RCTs encompassing 503 participants, SIT and MICT yielded comparable outcomes: - HbA1c: Mean Difference (MD) = -0.02% (95% CI: -0.10 to 0.07; p = 0.624) - HOMA-IR: MD = -0.08 (95% CI: -0.27 to 0.11; p = 0.362) - Fasting glucose: MD = 0.02 (95% CI: -0.15 to 0.20; p = 0.774) Meta-regression found no significant dose-response moderation by intervention duration, sprint volume, or weekly training load (p > 0.05 for all).

Why it matters

Sprint interval training provides similar glycemic and insulin-sensitizing benefits to standard continuous exercise while requiring substantially less time, offering a viable exercise option for adults with metabolic dysfunction who face time constraints.

Limits

The total pooled sample is relatively modest (503 participants across 13 trials). Substantial protocol variability existed across SIT regimens, and statistical heterogeneity was present. The abstract reports no data on adverse events, long-term adherence, or clinical cardiovascular endpoints.

Cited by