Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Sep;94(9):1718–1730. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.04.033

Figure 1:

Figure 1:

Exercise parameters over the course of cardiac rehabilitation. HIIT = high-intensity interval training; MICT = moderate-intensity continuous training

A. Average heart rate during training. HIIT vs. MICT, 2-weeks: 117 vs. 100 bpm, P=.01; 4-weeks: 118 vs. 99 bpm, P=.006; 8-weeks: 121 vs. 102 bpm, P=.01; 12-weeks: 121 vs. 102 bpm, P=.004, respectively. There was no evidence of a difference across groups over time (P=.98).

B. Average intensity. 2-weeks: 3.6 vs. 2.5 METs, P=.003; 4-weeks: 3.8 vs. 2.6 METs, P=.003; 8-weeks: 3.8 vs. 2.8 METs, P=.02; 12-weeks: 3.8 vs. 3.1 METs, P=.10, respectively. Evidence of a difference across groups over time was noted (P=.04).

C. Duration of exercise. 2-weeks: 32 vs. 24 mins, P<.001; 4-weeks: 33 vs. 25 mins, P<.001; 8-weeks: 35 vs. 27 mins, P<.001; 12-weeks: 35 vs. 27 mins, P=.006, respectively. There was no evidence of a difference across groups over time (P=.99).

D. Energy expenditure per session. 2-weeks: 166 vs. 80 kcal, P<.001; 4-weeks: 183 vs. 93 kcal, P<.001; 8-weeks: 192 vs. 107 kcal, P<.001; 12-weeks: 188 vs. 112 kcal, P=.008, respectively. There was no evidence of a difference across groups over time (P=.43). Results presented are mean and 95% confidence limits based on repeated measures ANOVA. Comparisons at each time point are adjusted for multiple comparisons using the method of Scheffe.