ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
Physiological and perceptual response to critical power anchored HIIT: a sex comparison study.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological sex does not impact intrinsic mitochondrial respiration supported by complexes I and II in human skeletal muscle.Experimental physiology · 2025Article
- Fitness, endurance, andEuropean journal of applied physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that using threshold-based high intensity interval training (HIIT
methodsThirteen males (mean ± SD: 22.0 ± 2.48 years, 181 ± 8.36 cm, 78.8 ± 11.4 kg) and eleven females (mean ± SD: 22.4 ± 2.69 years, 170 ± 5.73 cm, 65.2 ± 7.66 kg) initially undertook an incremental test to exhaustion to determine
resultsNo sex differences were recorded in time to fatigue [Female vs. Male (min): 36.0 ± 18.5 vs. 39.3 ± 16.3], heart rate, rate of perceived exertion, or %oxygenated [haem]. Females displayed lower %deoxygenated [haem] at the end of interval 1, 2, 3, and 4 [Female vs. Male (%): 89.4 ± 21.2 vs. 110 ± 27.3, 92.0 ± 21.5 vs. 115 ± 27.6, 87.1 ± 23.7 vs. 112 ± 22.8, 88.9 ± 26.3 vs. 113 ± 23.5]. Large interindividual variability in performance, and physiological and perceptual response were present despite the use of threshold-based prescription.
conclusionThe present study suggests that threshold-based prescription may help standardize the mean response exercise across sexes but does not eliminate physiological or perceptual variability. Furthermore, the lack of sex differences in TTF was accompanied by greater %deoxy[haem] in males, indicating tissue oxygenation is an unlikely determinant of HIIT performance. This study has been retrospectively registered at Trial Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KZVGC January 17th, 2023, following data collection but prior to data analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39237622What 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.