ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Effects of 6-week sprint interval training compared to traditional training on the running performance of distance runners: a randomized controlled trail.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A Novel Two-Week Dynamic HIIT Protocol Improves Roller Skiing Speed and Metabolic Efficiency in Trained Cross-Country Skiers: A Pilot Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the effects of sprint interval training Methods: Twenty male distance runners (VO2: 67.4 ± 4.5 mL/kg/min, personal best time for the 5000 m: 14'38″47 ± 00'23″46) were recruited and randomly assigned to either the intervention training (IT) group, which performed sprint interval training, or the control training (CT) group, which engaged in traditional long-distance training. Both groups completed their respective training regimens twice a week for 6 weeks. Measurements for VO2max, O2 cost, time to exhaustion (TTE), and running times for 100, 400, and 3000 m were taken before and after the intervention. Results: The results indicated that the IT group showed significant improvements in TTE and running performance across 100, 400, and 3000 m (all P < 0.01), while the CT group only demonstrated improvements in 400 m time (P < 0.01). The IT group exhibited superior 3000 m performance compared to the CT group (P < 0.01). Analysis of effect sizes revealed small to moderate improvements in physiological and performance measures for the IT group, with VO2max showing a small effect size of 0.43, O2 cost a moderate effect size of 0.65, and TTE a moderate effect size of 0.77. Conclusion: These findings suggest that sprint interval training may offer superior benefits for enhancing running performance of well-trained male distance runners, particularly in time to exhaustion and middle-to long-distance events, compared to traditional longdistance training.
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.