Trial reportScientific reports2026
Effects of different high-intensity interval training modes of wattbike on anaerobic capacity in Chinese national alpine skiers.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared two anaerobic high-intensity interval training (HIIT) modes with distinct work-rest structures-repeated sprint training (RST) and speed endurance maintenance training (SEMT)-on anaerobic performance in Chinese national-level alpine skiers. Eighteen Chinese national alpine skiers (age:19.8 ± 1.9 years) were randomly allocated to RST (n = 9) or SEMT (n = 9). RST consisted of 5 sets of 6 × (10 s all-out / 5 s rest) with 180 s recovery between sets; SEMT consisted of 5 × (60 s all-out / 180 s recovery). Both groups completed 12 sessions over 4 weeks (3 sessions/week). Performance was assessed 48 h before and after the intervention using countermovement jump (CMJ), a 90s lateral box jump, and a 90s Wingate test. Wingate outcomes were relative peak power (RPP), relative mean power (RMP), and fatigue index (FI). CMJ height increased in RST (+ 2.77%, p = 0.017, d = 0.995) but not in SEMT (+ 0.73%, p = 0.424, d = 0.281). The 90s lateral box jump improved in both RST (+ 9.21%, p = 0.004, d = 1.347) and SEMT (+ 7.52%, p < 0.001). Wingate RPP increased in RST (+ 2.35%, p = 0.003) but not in SEMT (- 0.09%, p = 0.972, d = 2.089), whereas Wingate RMP increased in SEMT (+ 3.91%, p = 0.017, d = 1.002) but not in RST (+ 1.49%, p = 0.056, d = 0.746). FI decreased in SEMT (- 3.38%, p = 0.001, d = 1.622) but not in RST (+ 0.08%, p = 0.943, d = 0.025). Between-group differences in change were observed for Wingate RPP (p = 0.037, d = 1.073) and FI (p = 0.02, d = 1.214). Over 4 weeks, both RST and SEMT improved sport-relevant anaerobic performance. In this cohort, RST showed greater improvements in anaerobic power-related outcomes, whereas SEMT showed greater improvements in fatigue resistance during prolonged supramaximal work.
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.