COMPARISON OF THE EFFECT OF INTERVAL AEROBIC TRAINING AND CONTINUOUS TRAINING ON CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE

This research compares the effects of interval and continuous aerobic training on people's quality of life and exercise capacity.

The participants are diagnosed with coronary artery disease, aged between 40- 80, and have no mental or physical disability to join in the research. The participants" demographic info and clinical stories were recorded. We used the symptom-limited and six-minute walking tests (6DYT) to evaluate exercise capacity. We evaluate the quality of life by using Short Form-36 (SF-36). All evaluation tests are done before and after training. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: interval aerobic training (IAE) and continuous aerobic training (CAE). The training lasted three times a week for six weeks. In all analyses, p0.05 (two-tailed) values were considered statistically significant. In the statistical analysis of the study, the variables were described using mean, standard deviation, and percentage values. The statistical analysis of categorical data between groups was calculated using the "Chi-Square test."

In both groups, significant changes were found in evaluation test scores after the rehabilitation program (p0,05). However, only the IAE group had significant statistical differences compared to the CAE group regarding test time and 6DYT scores. After training, the CAE group showed significant statistical change in every SF-36 parameter, while the IAE group showed significant values except energy/fatigue (p0,05). The IAE group has statistically significant changes compared to the CAE group on the parameters: physical function, role limitations due to physical function, role limitations due to emotional function, and general health (p0,05).

According to the results of our study, continuous or intermittent aerobic exercise program is effective in improving exercise tolerance and quality of life in individuals diagnosed with chronic lung disease.

Although both training methods benefitted cardiac rehabilitation, interval aerobic training was superior in some assessment parameters and was better tolerated than continuous aerobic training. For this reason, it was concluded that increasing patients' exertion capacity would be more helpful.