Trial reportEuropean journal of sport science2025
Effects of High Intensity Circuit Versus Traditional Strength Training on Physiological Responses in Trained Women.
Trial report in European journal of sport science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of high-intensity interval training on aerobic capacity, physical fitness, and body composition in martial arts athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring acute physiological adaptations to circuit strength training: the role of work-to-rest interval variations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Meeting the WHO guideline on muscle-strengthening activities does not have to be time-consuming: a discussion of time-saving strategies.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
This study's purpose was to compare differences in strength and body composition following high intensity circuit training (HICT) and traditional strength training (TS) in trained women. Fourteen participants (28.5 ± 5.4 years, 160.7 ± 6.1 cm, 65.9 ± 11.7 kg) were randomly assigned to either the HICT group (HICT: n = 7) performing two short circuits with 5 min' rest between each series or the TS group (TS: n = 7) performing one exercise at a time, resting 3 min between sets. Both groups trained 3 days per week for 8 weeks [8-15 repetitions, three sets], close to muscular failure. Body composition, arm and thigh muscle girth, skinfold thickness, and 3RM on six different exercises were assessed before and after the intervention. Both groups similarly increased 3RM across all exercises (p < 0.001). There was a main effect of time (p < 0.001) for both groups on lean body mass indicating an increase in lean mass over time following both protocols, whereas body fat percentage decreased as a factor of time only (p = 0.04). There were no significant group or group × time interactions for any other variable. Therefore, both HICT and TS are similarly effective for increasing strength and lean body mass and decreasing body fat percentage in trained women. Those interested in maximizing time efficiency may prefer HICT, as these sessions took much less time to complete. Other variables such as exercise selection and personal preference should also be taken into consideration when choosing training style.
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.