Trial reportPloS one2026
Effects of slide-board-based high-intensity interval versus moderate-intensity continuous training on aerobic and anaerobic capacity in young speed skaters.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThis study aimed to compare the effects of three slide-board training modalities-two high-intensity interval training protocols (HIIT1: 3 min work/2 min rest; HIIT2: 4 min work/1 min rest) and one moderate-intensity continuous training protocol (MICT: 20 min at 70% HRmax)-on aerobic and anaerobic capacities in young speed skaters.
methodsTwenty-seven youth speed skaters (15 males, 12 females) were randomly assigned to HIIT1, HIIT2, or MICT groups (n = 9 each). All participants completed a 4-week intervention (3 sessions/week) using a slide-board simulator. Aerobic capacity was assessed via maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and peak aerobic power output (Pmax) using an incremental cycle test. Anaerobic performance was evaluated with a 30-second Wingate test, including relative peak power (RPP), relative mean power (RMP), and fatigue index (FI). Pre- and post-test data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA and paired t-tests.
resultsBoth HIIT1 and HIIT2 significantly improved VO2max, RPP, and RMP, and reduced FI (p < 0.05), whereas MICT showed no significant changes in any variable. HIIT2 demonstrated greater improvements in Pmax and anaerobic power metrics compared to HIIT1, though intergroup differences were not statistically significant. HIIT1 appeared to enhance fatigue resistance more effectively.
conclusionSlide-board HIIT is an effective short-term training method for enhancing aerobic fitness and anaerobic power in youth speed skaters. HIIT2 (4 + 1 structure) may be more beneficial for sprinters requiring explosive power, while HIIT1 (3 + 2 structure) may suit middle- to long-distance skaters focusing on endurance and fatigue resistance. MICT alone appears insufficient to induce meaningful physiological adaptations in a 4-week period. These findings support the use of structure-specific HIIT protocols for sport-specific conditioning in speed skating.
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.