Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Obesity
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 2479597, 10 pages
Clinical Study

Limited Effects of Endurance or Interval Training on Visceral Adipose Tissue and Systemic Inflammation in Sedentary Middle-Aged Men

1School of Exercise Science, Sport and Health, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia
2Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Received 6 July 2016; Accepted 14 September 2016

Academic Editor: Chris I. Ardern

Copyright © 2016 Joshua H. F. Cooper et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Purpose. Limited data exists for the effects of sprint-interval training (SIT) and endurance training (ET) on total body composition, abdominal visceral adipose tissue, and plasma inflammation. Moreover, whether “active” or “passive” recovery in SIT provides a differential effect on these measures remains uncertain. Methods. Sedentary middle-aged men (;  y;  kg·m2) underwent abdominal computed tomography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, venepuncture, and exercise testing before and after the interventions, which included the following: 12 wks 3 d·wk−1 ET (; 50–60 min cycling; 80% ), SIT (4–10 × 30 s sprint efforts) with passive (P-SIT; ) or active recovery (A-SIT; ); or nonexercise control condition (CON; ). Changes in cardiorespiratory fitness, whole-body and visceral fat mass, and plasma systemic inflammation were examined. Results. Compared to CON, significant increases in interpolated power output (P-SIT, ; ET, ; A-SIT, ) and test duration (P-SIT, ; ET, ; A-SIT, ) occurred after training. Final VO2 consumption was increased after P-SIT only (). Despite >90% exercise compliance, there was no change in whole-body or visceral fat mass or plasma inflammation (). Conclusion. In sedentary middle-aged men, SIT was a time-effective alternative to ET in facilitating conditioning responses yet was ineffective in altering body composition and plasma inflammation, and compared to passive recovery, evidenced diminished conditioning responses when employing active recovery.