ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Early post-exercise physiological and perceptual responses following different sprint interval training configurations in highly trained national-level swimmers: a randomized crossover study.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sprint interval training (SIT) is widely used in competitive swimming, yet early post-exercise physiological and perceptual responses to different SIT configurations remain incompletely understood. This study compared in highly trained national-level middle- and long-distance swimmers. This study compared early post-exercise rating of perceived exertion (RPE), heart rate (HR), and blood lactate concentration (BLa) responses following four composite SIT configurations in national-level competitive middle- and long-distance freestyle swimmers. Methods: Fifteen highly trained national-level swimmers participated in this randomized crossover study. Each participant completed four SIT configurations in randomized order, with a 7-day washout period between sessions: 12 × 25 m with 1-min recovery, 10 × 35 m with 80-s recovery, 8 × 50 m with 2-min recovery, and 6 × 75 m with 3-min recovery. The work-to-rest ratio was maintained at 1:4 across configurations. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE), heart rate (HR), and blood lactate concentration (BLa) were measured before exercise and immediately post-exercise and at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 min of recovery. Baseline-adjusted linear mixed-effects models were used to examine protocol, time, and protocol × time effects, with post-exercise time treated as a categorical factor. Results: After adjustment for session-specific baseline values, significant main effects of protocol and time were observed for RPE, HR, and BLa (all p < 0.001). The protocol × time interaction did not reach statistical significance for RPE (p = 0.051) or HR (p = 0.209), A significant protocol × time interaction was observed for BLa (p = 0.005). BLa remained lower after SIT-1 than after SIT-2, SIT-3, and SIT-4 throughout recovery and decreased from 14.47 mmol·L Conclusions: Among the four composite configurations, SIT-1 (12 × 25 m) produced the lowest early-recovery BLa, whereas SIT-2 (10 × 35 m) elicited the highest overall RPE and HR and, together with SIT-3, maintained the highest BLa. Coaches should therefore select the complete SIT set structure according to the desired acute metabolic and perceptual load and subsequent within-session recovery requirements, rather than considering repetition distance alone.
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.