Cited by 272Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyMuscle metabolism and nutrition

10 or 30-S Sprint Interval Training Bouts Enhance Both Aerobic and Anaerobic Performance

Hazell, Tom J., MacPherson, Rebecca E. K., Gravelle, Braden M. R., Lemon, Peter W. R.·2010·European Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract

We assessed whether 10-s sprint interval training (SIT) bouts with 2 or 4 min recovery periods can improve aerobic and anaerobic performance. Subjects (n = 48) were assigned to one of four groups [exercise time (s):recovery time (min)]: (1) 30:4, (2) 10:4, (3) 10:2 or (4) control (no training). Training was cycling 3 week(-1) for 2 weeks (starting with 4 bouts session(-1), increasing 1 bout every 2 sessions, 6 total). Pre- and post-training measures included: VO(2max), 5-km time trial (TT), and a 30-s Wingate test. All groups were similar pre-training and the control group did not change over time. The 10-s groups trained at a higher intensity demonstrated by greater (P < 0.05) reproducibility of peak (10:4 = 96%; 10:2 = 95% vs. 30:4 = 89%), average (10:4 = 84%; 10:2 = 82% vs. 30:4 = 58%), and minimum power (10:4 = 73%; 10:2 = 69%; vs. 30:4 = 40%) within each session while the 30:4 group performed ~2X (P < 0.05) the total work session(-1) (83-124 kJ, 4-6 bouts) versus 10:4 (38-58 kJ); 10:2 (39-59 kJ). Training increased TT performance (P < 0.05) in the 30:4 (5.2%), 10:4 (3.5%), and 10:2 (3.0%) groups. VO(2max) increased in the 30:4 (9.3%) and 10:4 (9.2%), but not the 10:2 group. Wingate peak power kg(-1) increased (P < 0.05) in the 30:4 (9.5%), 10:4 (8.5%), and 10:2 (4.2%). Average Wingate power kg(-1) increased (P < 0.05) in the 30:4 (12.1%) and 10:4 (6.5%) groups. These data indicate that 10-s (with either 2 or 4 min recovery) and 30-s SIT bouts are effective for increasing anaerobic and aerobic performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00421-010-1474-y

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hazell, T. J., MacPherson, R. E. K., Gravelle, B. M. R., & Lemon, P. W. R.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Hazell, Tom J.
Venue
European Journal of Applied Physiology
Published
2010-04-28
Volume
110
Issue
1
Pages
153-160
ISSN
  • 0020-9376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-6319
  • 1439-6327
OpenAlex
W1999125202
Cited by
272
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 8
FWCI
12.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
sprint interval training, recovery interval, aerobic performance, anaerobic performance, VO2max, 5 km time trial, Wingate test, peak power, cycling, exercise intensity
MeSH terms
Adult, Bicycling, Body Composition, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Male, Muscle Contraction, Oxygen Consumption, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Anaerobic Threshold, Exercise, Muscle, Skeletal, Recovery of Function, Muscle Strength, Athletic Performance, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review