Quindry JC, et al. - Researchers assessed the benefits and risks associated with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs “traditional” moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in this study. They analyzed data derived from facilities and clinicians at the forefront of cardiac rehabilitation and found that, clinically, HIIT should be adopted as an alternative to MICT only in cases showing stable and asymptomatic responses to vigorous exercise training. They also noted that patient risk stratification should be taken into consideration. During outpatient rehabilitation, HIIT adherence appeared comparable to MICT; however, a dramatic drop in compliance was observed for unsupervised exercise. The main benefit of HIIT over MICT appeared to be short-term exercise performance outcomes and indices of vascular function, though there is enthusiasm surrounding HIIT. No better results were observed with HIIT vs MICT regarding benefits to cardiovascular disease risk factor modification, management of vital signs, and measures of cardiac performance. Long-term outcomes to HIIT are currently uncertain and the routine adoption of HIIT should be viewed cautiously.