Trial reportPloS one2026
Effects of high-intensity interval cross training and classical training on physical and sprint performance in male junior sprinters.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-Intensity Interval Cross Training (HIICT) combines sprinting, plyometric, and functional strength exercises, but its effects compared with classical sprint training in male junior sprinters remain unclear. This study examined the effects of HIICT and Classical Training (CT) on physical and sprint performance in male junior sprinters. Sixty-four male junior sprinters were randomly assigned to an HIICT group or a CT group for an 8-week intervention. Both groups completed similar overall internal training loads. Assessments before and after the intervention included sprint performance, jump performance, ground contact time, strength-related outcomes, anaerobic power, and body composition. Internal load was monitored using session rating of perceived exertion. Training load was comparable between groups throughout the intervention. Compared with CT, HIICT showed more favorable changes in 100-m sprint performance, first-60-m split time, ground contact time, countermovement jump performance, and relative peak power. Squat jump performance improved in both groups, with a greater tendency toward improvement following HIICT. Changes in body composition and several strength-related outcomes were broadly similar between groups, whereas power-clean performance showed a more favorable response in the HIICT group. These findings suggest that, under comparable internal training loads, HIICT may provide additional benefits for sprint-related explosive qualities and acceleration-related performance in male junior sprinters. From a practical perspective, HIICT may be considered as a supplementary training option within junior sprint training programs, particularly when the aim is to target sprint-specific neuromuscular qualities. However, given the specific sample and methodological limitations, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and require confirmation in future studies.
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.