Effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on insulin sensitivity in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM): A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

<ns3:p> Background High-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) are widely prescribed exercise modalities for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, their comparative effects on insulin sensitivity remain unclear. Objective To compare the effects of HIIT and MICT on insulin sensitivity and related metabolic outcomes in adults with T2DM. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024593995). Seven databases (CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, SCOPUS, SPORT Discus, and Web of Science) were searched from January 2015 to December 2025. Eligible RCTs included adults aged 30–70 years with T2DM comparing HIIT, MICT, and/or non-exercise control groups. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and modified Downs and Black checklist were used to assess study quality. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis and reported as standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Four RCTs (n = 162; 66 HIIT, 63 MICT, 39 control) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses revealed no statistically significant between-group differences in post-intervention outcomes: HbA1c (SMD −0.52 [95% CI −2.73 to 1.69], p = 0.42), HOMA-IR (SMD −0.14 [95% CI −3.32 to 3.04], p = 0.67), fasting insulin (SMD −0.05 [95% CI −4.30 to 4.21], p = 0.91), fasting blood sugar (SMD −0.29 [95% CI −1.32 to 0.75], p = 0.18), and body mass index (SMD −0.37 [95% CI −1.23 to 0.50], p = 0.27). Heterogeneity was moderate to high for some outcomes (I <ns3:sup>2</ns3:sup> = 42–84%). Overall methodological quality was good-to-excellent across studies. Conclusions HIIT and MICT appear to elicit comparable improvements in insulin sensitivity among adults with T2DM. These findings support flexibility in exercise prescription to accommodate individual preferences and clinical contexts. Larger, standardised RCTs are needed to confirm these results and explore long-term adherence and metabolic outcomes. <ns3:bold>Systematic review registration:</ns3:bold> PROSPERO CRD42024593995. </ns3:p>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
F1000Research
Published
2026-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180073.1
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on insulin sensitivity in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM): A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Gopala Krishna Alaparthi, Sampath Kumar Amaravadi, Patrícia dos Santos Vigário, Arthur de Sá Ferreira et al.
F1000Research
Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
article

Effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on insulin sensitivity in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM): A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Gopala Krishna Alaparthi, Sampath Kumar Amaravadi, Patrícia dos Santos Vigário, Arthur de Sá Ferreira, Choi Yu Annie Kong, Jorge Costa
article en

Abstract

<ns3:p> Background High-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) are widely prescribed exercise modalities for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, their comparative effects on insulin sensitivity remain unclear. Objective To compare the effects of HIIT and MICT on insulin sensitivity and related metabolic outcomes in adults with T2DM. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024593995). Seven databases (CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, SCOPUS, SPORT Discus, and Web of Science) were searched from January 2015 to December 2025. Eligible RCTs included adults aged 30–70 years with T2DM comparing HIIT, MICT, and/or non-exercise control groups. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and modified Downs and Black checklist were used to assess study quality. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis and reported as standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Four RCTs (n = 162; 66 HIIT, 63 MICT, 39 control) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses revealed no statistically significant between-group differences in post-intervention outcomes: HbA1c (SMD −0.52 [95% CI −2.73 to 1.69], p = 0.42), HOMA-IR (SMD −0.14 [95% CI −3.32 to 3.04], p = 0.67), fasting insulin (SMD −0.05 [95% CI −4.30 to 4.21], p = 0.91), fasting blood sugar (SMD −0.29 [95% CI −1.32 to 0.75], p = 0.18), and body mass index (SMD −0.37 [95% CI −1.23 to 0.50], p = 0.27). Heterogeneity was moderate to high for some outcomes (I <ns3:sup>2</ns3:sup> = 42–84%). Overall methodological quality was good-to-excellent across studies. Conclusions HIIT and MICT appear to elicit comparable improvements in insulin sensitivity among adults with T2DM. These findings support flexibility in exercise prescription to accommodate individual preferences and clinical contexts. Larger, standardised RCTs are needed to confirm these results and explore long-term adherence and metabolic outcomes. <ns3:bold>Systematic review registration:</ns3:bold> PROSPERO CRD42024593995. </ns3:p>

F1000ResearchVol. 15
Manchester Metropolitan University (GB), University Center Augusto Motta (BR), University of Birmingham (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.