Biking vs. Running: Comparison of EPOC, Substrate Oxidation, Appetite and Energy Intakes in Men With Overweight/Obesity.
Condition: Overweight and Obesity
MeSH terms: Obesity; Overweight
Study type: Interventional

Summary: 
      The management of obesity involves hygienic and dietary measures that include appropriate
      nutrition and an increase in physical activity (PA). Among the various PA modalities that can
      be recommended, High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is now recognized as a fun and
      effective program for promoting fat loss. A meta-analysis conducted by our team suggests a
      potential influence of the mode of HIIT practice (cycling vs. running) on fat mass (FM) loss.
      In order to better understand the metabolic adaptations following this type of practice, the
      investigators propose to compare two isoenergetic HIIT sessions (cycling vs. running) in
      overweight or obese subjects. The objective is to compare post-recovery (+2h) oxygen
      consumption, substrate utilization, concurrent energy expenditure and post 24h energy
      intakes.
    

Detailed description: 
      Overweight/obesity, and more specifically intra-abdominal fat mass (FM), are strongly
      correlated with the development of cardiovascular diseases. High-Intensity Interval Training
      (HIIT) has emerged as an effective strategy for reducing this detrimental FM. In 2016, AME2P
      laboratory was the first to demonstrate that HIIT training is more effective than continuous
      moderate-intensity training (MICT) in promoting the loss of intra-abdominal fat in
      postmenopausal women. A meta-analysis conducted by AME2P laboratory in 2018, including 39
      scientific articles with 617 subjects, confirms the significant effects of HIIT on total and
      intra-abdominal fat loss in overweight or obese individuals . In addition to the tested
      modality (HIIT vs. MICT), it seems that the mode of locomotion (HIIT running vs. cycling) may
      impact body composition differently, with running being more effective for intra-abdominal
      fat loss and cycling for total FM loss. Cycling primarily involves concentric effort of the
      lower limbs, while running engages the lower limbs, trunk, and to a lesser extent, the upper
      limbs, involving both concentric and eccentric muscle contractions. These
      physiological/biomechanical differences have an impact on metabolic adaptations to exercise
      and recovery. Thus, at the same relative intensity during continuous exercise, oxygen
      consumption and energy expenditure are higher in running compared to cycling. Following
      exercises of intensity greater than 50% of VO2max, excess post-exercise oxygen consumption
      (EPOC) and lipid oxidation are higher in running compared to cycling. The greater muscle
      involvement (engaged muscle mass) and the eccentric nature of running (causing muscle damage)
      are likely responsible for these adaptations.

      To better understand changes in body composition following HIIT training in running versus
      cycling among overweight or obese patients, the investigators propose to compare two
      isoenergetic HIIT sessions. The objective is to compare post-exercise (+2h) oxygen
      consumption and substrate utilization. Considering the influence of practice modalities on
      dietary compensations, the investigators will simultaneously measure spontaneous dietary
      intakes over the following 24 hours.

      Objectives

      The main objective is to compare two isoenergetic HIIT sessions: running vs. cycling.

      The two tested modalities are as follows:

        1. HIIT RUN: 9-12 x [45 seconds at 80% of HRmax followed by 1 minute 30 seconds of active
           recovery at a treadmill speed equivalent to 40% of HRmax].

        2. HIIT BIKE: 9-12 x [45 seconds at 80% of HRmax followed by 1 minute 30 seconds of active
           recovery at a power equivalent to 40% of HRmax].

      The theoretical maximum heart rate (HRmax) is calculated according to the formula of Gellish
      et al. (2007): HRmax = 207 - 0.7 x age.

      The sessions are conducted in a random order. The second session is adapted (9-12
      repetitions) to obtain isoenergetic exercises.

      Through these modalities, the investigators will compare post-exercise oxygen consumption
      (during 2 hours) and carbohydrate and lipid oxidation during the exercise, the recovery
      period (during 2 hours) (MetaMax 3B Cortex, France), and the appetite 24hours post-exercise
      (from questionaniers and interview).

      *Note that medical supervision of all participants is provided by the Health Department of
      the CREPS Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes in Vichy, which is authorized for such care. Physicians and
      physical activity professors are present on site.

      General Hypotheses

      The investigators propose the following hypotheses:

        -  Post-exercise oxygen consumption (2 hours) will be higher in HIIT running compared to
           cycling

        -  Higher post-exercise oxygen consumption following HIIT running could lead to an increase
           of lipid utilization during the recovery period.

        -  Energy intake over 24 hours will not differ due to the isoenergetic nature of the
           sessions.
    

Intervention name(s): Exercise
Intervention type(s): Other
Intervention description(s): Two HIIT modalities
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention model: Crossover Assignment
Masking: Single (Participant)
Primary purpose: Prevention
Keywords: Modalities; High-intensity interval exercise; Substrate oxidation; Appetite; Energy Intakes; Enjoyment