Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors?

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of participants

Characteristics	LVHIIT n = 24	CLMIT n = 21	Control n = 12
Sociodemographic
Age, mean (SD), yr	48 (11.9)	52 (12.4)	57 (11.5)
Sex, n (%) male	F, 25 (0)	F, 21 (0)	F, 12 (0)
Comorbidity, n (%) yes	2 (0.8)	1 (0.4)	0 (0)
Diagnosis, n (%)
Breast	21 (88)	16 (75)	10 (83)
Ovarian		1 (5)	1 (8.5)
Appendix		1 (5)
Anal			1 (8.5)
Cervical	1 (4)
Liver	1 (4)
Esophageal	1 (4)
Melanoma		1 (5)
Leiomyosarcoma		1 (5)
Unknown primary		1 (5)
Stage of disease, n (%)
Stage I-II	19 (79)	16 (76)	10 (83)
Stage II-IV	5 (21)	5 (24)	2 (17)
Type of treatment, n (%)
Surgery	21 (88)	20 (95)	12 (100)
Radiation therapy	18 (75)	13 (62)	10 (83)
Hormone therapy	19 (79)	15 (71)	9 (75)
Types of chemotherapy, n (%)
TAC	7 (29)	4 (19)	1 (8)
FEC	5 (21)	3 (14)	3 (25)
TAC/FEC combinations	2 (8)	3 (14)	2 (17)
Capecitabine and oxaliplatin		1 (5)
Carboplatin and paclitaxel	1 (4)		1 (8)
Cisplatin	1 (4)
CHOP	1 (4)
ABVD	1 (4)	1 (5)	1 (8)
Other	2 (8)	3 (14)
No chemotherapy	4 (17)	6 (29)	4 (33)

LVHIIT: Low volume high-intensity training; CLMIT: Continuous low to moderate-intensity training; TAC: Taxotere, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide; FEC: Fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide; CHOP: Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone; ABVD: Doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine.