Effect of concurrent training and high-intensity interval training on glycemic biomarkers in sedentary postmenopausal women with overweight or obesity (mean ± SD) at baseline (T1) and at the end of the study (T2).
| Variable | Group | T1 | T2 | Change (%) | Cohen’s d | ANOVA. P-value (Cohen’s d) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interaction | Group | Time | ||||||
| Insulin (μg/L) | CONC | 14.27 ± 2.11 | 11.52 ± 2.53†* | –19.27 | 1.18 | 0.001 (0.75) | 0.172 (0.31) | 0.047 (0.41)** |
| HIIT | 12.71 ± 2.85 | 10.39 ± 2.27†* | –18.25 | 0.85 | ||||
| CG | 13.75 ± 2.46 | 13.73 ± 2.63 | –0.14 | 0.007 | ||||
| Glucose (mg/dL) | CONC | 106.05 ± 9.27 | 101.63 ± 10.86†* | –4.16 | 0.58 | 0.001 (1.03) | 0.172 (0.32) | 0.001 (0.83)** |
| HIIT | 109.05 ± 7.97 | 96.00 ± 8.32†* | –11.96 | 0.66 | ||||
| CG | 106.05 ± 9.27 | 105.10 ± 7.79 | –0.89 | 0.11 | ||||
| HOMA-IR index | CONC | 3.60 ± 0.72 | 2.74 ± 0.66†* | –23.88 | 1.24 | 0.001 (0.95) | 0.229 (0.28) | 0.001 (0.81)** |
| HIIT | 3.37 ± 0.82 | 2.59 ± 0.06†* | –23.14 | 1.34 | ||||
| CG | 3.26 ± 0.79 | 3.28 ± 0.78 | +0.61 | 0.05 | ||||
CG: control group; CONC: concurrent training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; HOMA-IR: homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance; SD: standard deviation; %: percentage. †: significant difference from pre to post (P < 0.05); *: significant difference from CG (P < 0.05); ‡: significant difference from HIIT (P< 0.05); **: significant time × group interaction. Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures, followed by the post hoc test of Bonferroni. Values are expressed as mean (SD).
The supplementary table for this article is available at: https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/file/101469_sup_1.pdf.
The authors wish to thank the Neurobiology Research Group, University of Valladolid, for their support in advising on methodological design and result interpretation. CIBEROBN is an initiative of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid (Spain).
SA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—review & editing. SRS: Methodology, Investigation. MGB: Software, Validation, Investigation. JMM: Software, Validation, Project administration. GRO: Software, Validation, Project administration. GS: Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Project administration. ER: Formal analysis, Project administration, Writing—review & editing. JMA: Validation, Formal analysis, Writing—review & editing. AMCSM: Validation, Formal analysis, Writing—review & editing. DFL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. MAA: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Islamic Azad University Mahabad Branch (IR.IAU.MAHABAD.REC.1404.012).
Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants.
Not applicable.
The datasets that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The research is funded by the TCUE 2024-2027 Plan, approved by agreement on September 16, 2024, and has been selected within the framework of an operational program co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Regional Government of Castile and León (067/230003 POC). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
© The Author(s) 2026.
Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.