CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Cardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and TrainingPhysical Activity and Health

A multi-center comparison of o2peak trainability between interval training and moderate intensity continuous training.

Open access
Williams, Camilla J., Gurd, Brendon J., Bonafiglia, Jacob T., Voisin, Sarah, Li, Zhixiu, Harvey, Nicholas, Croci, Ilaria, Taylor, Jenna L. +22 more·2019·Frontiers in Physiology
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2019.00019PMC PMC6370746
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There is heterogeneity in the observed V̇O2peak response to similar exercise training, and different exercise approaches produce variable degrees of exercise response (trainability). The aim of this study was to combine data from different laboratories to compare V̇O2peak trainability between various volumes of interval training and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training (MICT). For interval training, volumes were classified by the duration of total interval time. High-volume High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) included studies that had participants complete more than 15 minutes of high intensity efforts per session. Low-volume HIIT/Sprint Interval Training (SIT) included studies using less than 15 minutes of high intensity efforts per session. In total, 677 participants across 18 aerobic exercise training interventions from 8 different universities in 5 countries were included in the analysis. Participants had completed 3 weeks or more of either high-volume HIIT (n=299), low-volume HIIT/SIT (n=116), or MICT (n=262) and were predominately men (n=495) with a mix of healthy, elderly and clinical populations. Each training intervention improved mean V̇O2peak at the group level (p<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, high-volume HIIT had a significantly greater (P<0.05) absolute V̇O2peak increase (0.29 L/min) compared to MICT (0.20 L/min) and low-volume HIIT/SIT (0.18 L/min). Adjusted relative V̇O2peak increase was also significantly greater (P<0.01) in high-volume HIIT (3.3 ml/kg/min) than MICT (2.4 ml/kg/min) and insignificantly greater (P=0.09) than low-volume HIIT/SIT (2.5 mL/kg/min). Based on a high threshold for a likely response (technical error of measurement plus the minimal clinically important difference), high-volume HIIT had significantly more (P<0.01) likely responders (31%) compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT (16%) and MICT (21%). Covariates such as age, sex, the individual study, population group, sessions per week, study duration and the average between pre and post V̇O2peak explained only 17.3% of the variance in V̇O2peak trainability. In conclusion, high-volume HIIT had more likely responders to improvements in V̇O2peak compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT and MICT.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fphys.2019.00019

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • All scientific disciplines studying the relationship between physical exercises and/or physical training and the central nervous system are based on an appropriate exercise prescription that specifies exercise and/or training variables.

    “Although these different scientific disciplines use different approaches to understand the relationship between physical exercises and/or physical training and the central nervous system, it is undoubted that all of them are based on an appropriate exercise prescription that specifies exercise (e.g., exercise intensity, exercise duration) and/or training variables (e.g., frequency of training ses”

    From Dose-Response Matters! - A Perspective on the Exercise Prescription in Exercise-Cognition Research (2019) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. ACOS Medicine (2017). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 10 Edn. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 480.
  2. Edwards S. (1993). High Performance Training and Racing.The Heart Rate Monitor Book. Sacramento: Feet Fleet Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Williams, C. J., Gurd, B. J., Bonafiglia, J. T., Voisin, S., Li, Z., Harvey, N., Croci, I., Taylor, J. L., Gajanand, T., Ramos, J. S., Fassett, R. G., Little, J. P., Francois, M. E., Hearon, C. M., Sarma, S., Janssen, S. L. J. E., Van Craenenbroeck, E. M., Beckers, P., Cornelissen, V. A., Pattyn, N., Howden, E. J., Keating, S. E., Bye, A., Stensvold, D., Wisloff, U., Papadimitriou, I., Yan, X., Bishop, D. J., Eynon, N., & Coombes, J. S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Victoria University (AU)
  • Translational Research Institute (AU)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine (US)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Antwerp University Hospital (BE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute (AU)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AU)
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
Corresponding author
Coombes, Jeff S.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Physiology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-02-05
Volume
10
Pages
19-19
ISSN
1664-042X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fphys.2019.00019
PMC
PMC6370746
OpenAlex
W2911983681
Cited by
117
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13
FWCI
19.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bond University
  • Medical Research Council
  • Australian Research Council (140100864, DE140100864)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1140644)
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, sprint interval training, moderate-intensity continuous training, cardiorespiratory fitness, exercise training intervention, multicenter comparison, minimal clinically important difference, sex differences, age differences, older adults, clinical populations

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