Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33826121›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Programming Interval Training to Optimize Time-Trial Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Michael A Rosenblat, Edward Lin, Bruno R da Costa, Scott G Thomas

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael A RosenblatDepartment of Exercise Science, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. michael@evidencebasedcoaching.ca.
Edward LinDepartment of Exercise Science, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Bruno R da CostaInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, 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

backgroundInterval training has become an essential component of endurance training programs because it can facilitate a substantial improvement in endurance sport performance. Two forms of interval training that are commonly used to improve endurance sport performance are high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and sprint interval training (SIT). Despite extensive research, there is no consensus concerning the optimal method to manipulate the interval training programming variables to maximize endurance performance for differing individuals.

objectiveThe objective of this manuscript was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of interval training studies to determine the influence that individual characteristics and training variables have on time-trial (TT) performance. DATA SOURCES: SPORTDiscus and Medline with Full Text were explored to conduct a systematic literature search. STUDY SELECTION: The following criteria were used to select studies appropriate for the review: 1. the studies were prospective in nature; 2. included individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 years; 3. included an interval training (HIIT or SIT) program at least 2 weeks in duration; 4. included a TT test that required participants to complete a set distance; 5. and programmed HIIT by power or velocity.

resultsTwenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for the quantitative analysis with a total of 67 separate groups. The participants included males (n = 400) and females (n = 91) with a mean group age of 25 (range 19-45) years and mean [Formula: see text] of 52 (range 32-70) mL·kg

conclusionOptimization of interval training programs to produce TT performance improvements should be done according to training status. Our analysis suggests that increasing interval training dose beyond minimal requirements may not augment the training response. In addition, optimal dosing differs between high intensity and sprint interval programs.

Indexed as

High-Intensity Interval TrainingSportsAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33826121

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.