SynthesisBMC public health2025
Moderators of body composition change in response to sprint interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe relative effectiveness of sprint interval training (SIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for fat loss remains debated, with significant heterogeneity in published findings. This study aimed to compare their effects on body composition and to identify key moderators of these effects through advanced meta-regression techniques.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of major scientific databases up to March 1, 2025, for randomised controlled trials directly comparing SIT and MICT. A primary random-effects meta-analysis was performed, followed by a series of single- and multivariable meta-regressions and interaction analyses to investigate the independent effects of various “dose” metrics (e.g., weekly sprint time, intervention duration), participant population, and protocol characteristics.
resultsTwenty-three studies were included. The primary analysis revealed no significant overall difference between SIT and MICT for changes in total body fat mass (SMD = -0.11, 95% CI: −0.30 to 0.08) or body fat percentage (SMD = -0.13, 95% CI: −0.30 to 0.05). However, the multivariable meta-regression uncovered a significant, independent dose-response relationship: increasing the total weekly sprint time was associated with a greater reduction in absolute body fat mass, but not body fat percentage. Interaction analyses further revealed this dose-dependent effect is strikingly more pronounced in normal-weight individuals and is significantly amplified when using active recovery protocols.
conclusionsThe pooled null effect between SIT and MICT masks a crucial, predictable reality. The efficacy of SIT is not uniform but is a function of specific training and population variables. Its superiority for reducing absolute body fat mass is contingent on sufficient weekly sprint volume, a benefit that is most scalable in normal-weight individuals and enhanced by active recovery. The discrepancy between body fat mass and fat percentage outcomes suggests SIT may better preserve lean body mass. These findings advocate for a shift from a generic comparison to a personalized, dose- and context-aware approach to exercise prescription for public health.
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.