The Chronic Effect of Interval Training on Energy Intake: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 3

Metaregression of the pooled effect of comparisons of HIIT/SIT versus MICT on energy intake (kJ) by characteristics of studies.

Comparison	Regression coefficient (95% CI)	value
HIIT/SIT versus MICT (13 studies)
(i) Duration	−0.2043 (−1.3249 to 0.9163)	0.767
(ii) Sessions	0.0315 (−0.3807 to 0.4437)	0.881
(iii) Sex: male	−0.2832 (−1.2370 to 0.6706)	0.561
(iv) Sex: female	−0.5507 (−1.8521 to 0.7507)	0.407
(v) Age	0.0084 (−0.0468 to 0.0637)	0.765
(vi) BMI	0.0749 (−0.7328 to 0.8826)	0.858
(vii) Metabolic disease	−0.0137 (−0.9263 to 0.8990)	0.977
(viii) Energy intake method	—	0.992
(xi) Study quality	0.3190 (−0.3588 to 0.9968)	0.356
HIIT/SIT versus CON (7 studies)
(i) Duration	−0.2043 (−1.3249 to 0.9163)	0.721
(ii) Sessions	0.0315 (−0.3807 to 0.4437)	0.881
(iii) Sex: male	1.9613 (−2.2499 to 6.1725)	0.361
(iv) Sex: female	−0.0725 (−5.6154 to 5.4704)	0.980
(v) Age	0.1078 (−0.1153 to 0.3309)	0.344
(vi) BMI	0.0305 (−2.2832 to 2.3443)	0.979
(vii) Metabolic disease	1.1265 (−2.1349 to 4.3879)	0.979
(viii) Energy intake method	—	0.826
(xi) Study quality	1.7705 (−0.3926 to 3.9337)	0.109

BMI: body mass index; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; SIT: sprint interval training; MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training; CON: control; CI: confidence interval.