ArticleBiology of sport2026
Repeated sprint training induces prolonged residual fatigue compared to other high-intensity interval training modalities in middle-distance runners.
Article in Biology of sport, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to monitor the kinetics of neuromuscular fatigue and inflammation indices in middle-distance runners following exposure to three different high-intensity interval training (HIIT) modalities: short-interval HIIT, long-interval HIIT, and repeated sprint training (RST). A crossover repeated-measures design was used involving 33 male middle-distance runners (19.6 ± 2.3 years) who completed short-interval HIIT, long-interval HIIT, and RST. Neuromuscular performance was assessed using the countermovement jump (CMJ) and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), while inflammatory (salivary IL-6) and perceptual markers (delayed onset muscle soreness, DOMS and perceived recovery scale, PRS) were measured at rest, immediately post-exercise, and at 24 and 48 hours post-exercise to evaluate changes over time. All variables showed significant main effects of time and modality, as well as interactions (p < 0.001). Immediately post-exercise, RST consistently induced the greatest acute fatigue, evidenced by larger declines in CMJ (9.6%) and IMTP (6.7%), an increase in IL-6, and a 56.8% drop in PRS. At 24 hours post-exercise, RST still showed significantly reduced performance (CMJ and IMTP) and elevated inflammation (IL-6) compared to short and long-HIIT. DOMS peaked at 24 hours in the RST group, which also reported lower perceived recovery. By 48 hours, performance and inflammatory markers largely returned to baseline across all groups. However, RST continued to show higher DOMS and lower PRS than both short and long-HIIT (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that RST induces a more pronounced and prolonged recovery period compared to both short- and long-interval HIIT. Coaches should consider that recovery following RST sessions may require up to at least 48 hours, which is longer than for short- or long-interval HIIT.
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.