The main finding of the present study was that HIIE elicited different total energy expenditure during exercise from SSE, despite matched volume. By design, energy expenditure was ~13% higher in the HIIE group (523 ± 40.06 versus 453 ± 56.72 kcal for SSE, p < 0.02) and session exercise time was 39% higher than the SSE group (30.78 ± 2.09 min versus 42.09 ± 2.93 min), whereas the session exercise time in the HIIE group that was spent in recovery between intense pause/session of run, thus actual exercise time was ~21 minutes compared to SSE. Recently, study have related similar energy expenditure (EE) in response to HIIE (10×60s at a workload that elicited 90% maximal heart rate with 60-s of active recovery at 50 W) and SSE (cycling at a workload that elicited 70% of maximal heart rate for 50 min) after 24h (Skelly et al., 2014), even despite the fact that the total energy expenditure during the exercise session was superior in SSE than HIIE (352 ± 34 versus 547 ± 65kcal, respectively; p < 0.001). This suggests that a session of HIIE may promote greater physiological stress than a bout of SSE, principally due to an increased hormonal response. Although our data has not exhibited significant differences between both protocol sessions, the energy expenditure following exercise (1h recovery) was 14% higher in HIIE than SSE. The difference in EE during exercise bouts (SSE vs HIIE) found in present study may be due to exercise protocols utilized, and here, we demonstrated that when the volume was equal between SSE and HIIE sessions, HIIE leads to more EE. In addition, the alterations found in our data after both exercise sessions are due to, at least in part, of hormonal changes, given that acute exercise promotes the enhancement of several hormones, principally the ones related to lipolysis in adipose tissue and glycogenolysis in skeletal muscle and the liver, promoting the availability of energetic substrates mainly by NEFA and glucose for muscle workload. Concomitant with the increased cortisol levels, our data demonstrate that HIIE promotes greater demands on the anaerobic metabolism (seen by peak lactate, Figure 2B) compared to SSE, while SSE promotes great demands on the aerobic metabolism (seen by peak NEFA, Figure 2C) compared with HIIE. In our data, the HIIE did not promote accumulated NEFA levels immediately after exercise, while SSE did. During the steady state exercise, higher utilization of lipids in comparison with intermittent exercise is observed. Moreover, Jeppense and Kiens (2012) have reported that this response depends on acetyl CoA and CoA concentration ratios, carnitine availability, and hydrogen ion concentration. This last is likely higher during HIIE, due to anaerobic metabolism. More studies are needed to better understand the mechanisms involved in this response. The lack of accumulated NEFA levels immediately after HIIE can be, at least in part, a result of the higher fatty acid uptake by skeletal muscle during the repeated metabolic perturbations in the transitions from rest to exercise (pause/session cycles). We suggest that HIIE may be important in stimulate the lipolysis process, however an efficient clearance during pause favored by fatty acid uptake by skeletal muscle occurs, indicating that a supply for energy demand by aerobic metabolism also occurs. Studies have related that physiological adaptations resulting from brief sessions in Wingate-based HIIT over two weeks is a potential stimulus to enhance skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and induce adaptations that are apparent after several weeks, such as reduced rate of glycogen utilization and lactate production during exercise, and an increased capacity for whole-body and skeletal muscle lipid oxidation (Gibala et al., 2009; Burgomaster et al., 2008). Recently, our group has demonstrated that low-volume HIIE performance (4 sessions of Wingate-based HIIT, 30s x 3 minutes rest, ~2 minutes of exercise) promotes accumulated serum NEFA levels after the last session followed by rest (Lira et al., 2015). The higher serum NEFA levels can be a result of the lipolysis process; the need for an available substrate for maintenance of muscle contraction during exercise, but, as the exercise performed was short-duration, free fatty acid uptake by the skeletal muscle can be reduced, exposing the blood circulation to high concentrations of NEFA. Our data suggest that, HIIE performed in high-volume (5km) provides increased fatty acid uptake, principally by skeletal muscle. On the other hand, a robust inflammatory response during the exercise session is observed. Skeletal muscle is a major source of some cytokines and the response is dependent on duration, intensity and session volume of exercise (Pedersen and Febbraio, 2009; Neto et al., 2011). The cytokines exert several functions, and have a crucial role in energy metabolism, such as IL-6 and TNF-α, that are important in the anti-inflammatory response and exert effects on glucose and lipid metabolism, stimulating increases in the lipolysis and glycogenolysis process in order to provide an energy supply for the skeletal muscle and other tissue after exercise. In the present study, we observed that together with high cortisol levels in the SSE session, higher TNF-α levels, and the immune-endocrine profile can exert a potential effect on the lipolysis process, leading to accumulated NEFA levels after exercise. Rosa et al. (2009) have related that acute exhaustive exercise induces a pro-inflammatory response in the adipose tissue (observed by elevated IL-6 and TNF-α levels in adipose tissue) and this increase can contribute to lipolysis and the release of fatty acids as an energy supply for muscle and other tissues immediately after exercise. On the other hand, in the HIIE session higher IL-6 values were observed. Particularly, this immune-endocrine profile can favor the glucogenolysis process and the available glucose for skeletal muscle work. The results suggest that the alterations regarding cytokine kinetics during exercise are dependent on the exercise mode. However, more studies are needed for a better understanding of the mechanism involved. In addition, increased IL-10 levels and IL-10/TNF-α ratio were observed in both exercise protocols, showing the anti-inflammatory role promoted by exercise sessions. Classically, exercise leads to an anti-inflammatory status, and its condition is induced by an increase in IL-6 production in the skeletal muscle and, after exercise, higher IL-1ra and IL-10 levels are observed. The increased IL-10 levels can be related to higher IL-6 and TNF-α levels, and the principal role of these is to prevent the exacerbation of the pro-inflammatory status, blocking a possible persistent inflammatory status. Both HIIE and SSE were able to promote an anti-inflammatory status, as seen in an increased IL-10/TNF-α ratio. This suggests that both can be utilized as strategies for different populations, such as obesity, diabetes, dyslipidemia. More studies are necessary to better understand the mechanisms involved in HIIT in anti-inflammatory responses. This study is limited mainly by the difference in total work performed. Even though the exercise volume was the same, HIIE likely induced higher internal loads. Future studies may want to verify whether work-matched HIIE and SSE exhibit different inflammatory and metabolic responses. |