Cited by 53Cardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and TrainingPhysical Activity and Health

Sex-specific responses to self-paced, high-intensity interval training with variable recovery periods

Laurent, C. Matthew, Vervaecke, Lauren S., Kutz, Matthew R., Green, J. Matthew·2014·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

This study examined sex-specific responses during self-paced, high-intensity interval training (HIIT). Sixteen (8 men and 8 women) individuals completed a peak oxygen uptake test and 3 treadmill HIIT sessions on separate days. The HIIT sessions consisted of six 4-minute intervals performed at the highest self-selected intensity individuals felt they could maintain. Recovery between intervals was counterbalanced and consisted of 1-, 2-, or 4-minute recovery during each trial. Relative measures of intensity, including percentage of velocity at VO2peak (vVO2peak), %VO2peak, %HRmax, and blood lactate concentration ([La]), were observed during the trials. Perceived readiness was recorded immediately before and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded at the end of each interval with session RPE recorded after each trial. Results revealed a significant effect of sex on %vVO2peak (p < 0.01) and %HRmax (p < 0.01). Data show that across trials, men self-select higher %vVO2peak (84.5 vs. 80.7%), whereas women produce higher %HRmax (96.9 vs. 92.1%) and %VO2peak (89.6 vs. 86.1%) with no difference in [La] or perceptual responses. These findings support the notion that women may demonstrate improved recovery during high-intensity exercise, as they will self-select intensities resulting in greater cardiovascular strain. Moreover, results confirm previous findings suggesting that a 2:1 work-to-rest ratio is optimal during HIIT for both men and women.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182a1f574

Cites

40 of 40 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
Laurent, C. M., Vervaecke, L. S., Kutz, M. R., & Green, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of North Alabama (US)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • Bowling Green State University (US)
Corresponding author
Laurent, C. Matthew
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2014-04
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
920-927
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096680719
Cited by
53
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
high-intensity interval training, sex differences, self-paced exercise, convalescence, work-to-rest ratio, oxygen consumption, heart rate, blood lactate, rating of perceived exertion, perceived preparedness, cardiovascular strain
MeSH terms
Acceleration, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Exercise Test, Physical Exertion, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Lactates, Male, Oxygen Consumption, Physical Education and Training, Physical Endurance, Sex Factors, Time Factors, Exercise, Confidence Intervals, 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