Trial reportPloS one2013
Application of the speed-duration relationship to normalize the intensity of high-intensity interval training.
Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of curvature constant (W') of the power duration relationship under normoxia and hypoxia: the effect of pre-exercise alkalosis.European journal of applied physiology · 2017Trial
- Modelling inter-individual variability in acute and adaptive responses to interval training: insights into exercise intensity normalisation.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Article
- Conventional methods to prescribe exercise intensity are ineffective for exhaustive interval training.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Article
- Reliability of the parameters of the power-duration relationship using maximal effort time-trials under laboratory conditions.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The tolerable duration of continuous high-intensity exercise is determined by the hyperbolic Speed-tolerable duration (S-tLIM) relationship. However, application of the S-tLIM relationship to normalize the intensity of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) has yet to be considered, with this the aim of present study. Subjects completed a ramp-incremental test, and series of 4 constant-speed tests to determine the S-tLIM relationship. A sub-group of subjects (n = 8) then repeated 4 min bouts of exercise at the speeds predicted to induce intolerance at 4 min (WR4), 6 min (WR6) and 8 min (WR8), interspersed with bouts of 4 min recovery, to the point of exercise intolerance (fixed WR HIIT) on different days, with the aim of establishing the work rate that could be sustained for 960 s (i.e. 4×4 min). A sub-group of subjects (n = 6) also completed 4 bouts of exercise interspersed with 4 min recovery, with each bout continued to the point of exercise intolerance (maximal HIIT) to determine the appropriate protocol for maximizing the amount of high-intensity work that can be completed during 4×4 min HIIT. For fixed WR HIIT tLIM of HIIT sessions was 399±81 s for WR4, 892±181 s for WR6 and 1517±346 s for WR8, with total exercise durations all significantly different from each other (P<0.050). For maximal HIIT, there was no difference in tLIM of each of the 4 bouts (Bout 1: 229±27 s; Bout 2: 262±37 s; Bout 3: 235±49 s; Bout 4: 235±53 s; P>0.050). However, there was significantly less high-intensity work completed during bouts 2 (153.5±40. 9 m), 3 (136.9±38.9 m), and 4 (136.7±39.3 m), compared with bout 1 (264.9±58.7 m; P>0.050). These data establish that WR6 provides the appropriate work rate to normalize the intensity of HIIT between subjects. Maximal HIIT provides a protocol which allows the relative contribution of the work rate profile to physiological adaptations to be considered during alternative intensity-matched HIIT protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.