Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32034701›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Effect of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Sprint Interval Training on Time-Trial Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Michael A Rosenblat, Andrew S Perrotta, Scott G Thomas

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. HIIT vs. SIT: What Is the Better to Improve V˙OInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael A RosenblatDepartment of Exercise Science, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. michael@evidencebasedcoaching.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3045-2177
Andrew S PerrottaDepartment of Kinesiology, Langara College, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Scott G ThomasDepartment of Exercise Science, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo forms of interval training commonly discussed in the literature are high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and sprint interval training (SIT). HIIT consists of repeated bouts of exercise that occur at a power output or velocity between the second ventilatory threshold and maximal oxygen consumption (VO

objectiveThe primary objective of this study is to systematically review published randomized and pair-matched trials to determine which mode of interval training, HIIT versus SIT, leads to a greater improvement in TT performance in active and trained individuals. The second objective of this review is to perform a subgroup analysis to determine if there is a distinction between HIIT programs that differ in work-bout duration. DATA SOURCES: SPORTDiscus (1800-present) and Medline with Full Text (1946-present) were used to conduct a systematic literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected for the review if they met the following criteria: (1) individuals (males and females) who were considered at least moderately trained (~ 3-h per week of activity) as specified by the authors of the included studies; (2) between the ages of 18 and 45 years; (3) randomized or pair-matched trials that included a HIIT and a SIT group; (4) provided detailed information about the interval training program; (5) were at least 2 weeks in duration; (6) included a TT test that required participants to complete a set distance.

resultsA total of 6 articles met the inclusion criteria for the subjective and objective analysis. The pooled analysis was based on a random-effects model. There was no difference in the change in TT performance when comparing all HIIT versus SIT (0.9%; 90% CI - 1.2-1.9%, p = 0.18). However, subgroup analysis based on duration of work interval indicated a 2% greater improvement in TT performance following long-HIIT (≥ 4 min) when compared to SIT. There was no difference in change in VO

conclusionThe results of the meta-analysis indicate that long-HIIT may be the optimal form of interval training to augment TT performance. Additional research that directly compares HIIT exercise differing in work-bout duration would strengthen these results and provide further insight into the mechanisms behind the observed benefits of long-HIIT.

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceExercise TestHigh-Intensity Interval TrainingHumansOxygen Consumption

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.