Cargando…
Minimal Detectable Change in Resting Blood Pressure and Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Secondary Analysis of a Study on School-Based High-Intensity Interval Training Intervention
High-intensity interval training (HIIT) effects on resting blood pressure (BP) and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) have already been studied. Furthermore, the responses of responders and non-responders to HIIT in terms of these physiological outcomes have also been examined. However, the minimal det...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10573284/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37834790 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12196146 |
Sumario: | High-intensity interval training (HIIT) effects on resting blood pressure (BP) and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) have already been studied. Furthermore, the responses of responders and non-responders to HIIT in terms of these physiological outcomes have also been examined. However, the minimal detectable change (MDC) in BP and CRF has not been addressed yet. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the MDC(90) of BP (systolic and diastolic) and CRF (fitness index (FI) results) in the context of a school-based HIIT program for adolescents. Participants were adolescents, with an average age of 16.16 years (n = 141; 36.6% males). A preplanned secondary analysis was conducted using pre–post data from the control group to estimate MDC(90). The MDC(90) of SBP, DBP, and FI were 7.82 mm HG, 12.45 mm HG, and 5.39 points, respectively. However, taking into account the relative values of these changes, MDC(90) required a greater change in DBP (17.27%) than FI (12.15%) and SBP (6.68%). Any training-induced physiological changes in the average values of the outcomes did not exceed MDC(90). However, a comparison of the participants who exceeded and did not exceed MDC(90) showed statistically significant differences. These findings reveal the huge variability in and insensitivity to the intervention effect for all measurements. This is likely because of the large subgroup of participants with low sensitivity to the physiological stimulus. As such, there is a considerable need to create individually tailored intervention programs. |
---|