Reducing training frequency from 3 or 4 sessions/week to 2 sessions/week does not attenuate improvements in maximal aerobic capacity with reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT)

In the present randomised-controlled trial we investigated the effect of REHIT training frequency (2/3/4 sessions/week for 6 weeks) on maximal aerobic capacity (V̇O2max) in 42 inactive individuals (13 women; mean±SD age: 25±5 y, V̇O2max: 35±5 mL·kg-1·min-1). Changes in V̇O2max were not significantly different between the three groups (2 sessions/week: +10.2%; 3 sessions/week: +8.1%; 4 sessions per week: +7.3%). In conclusion, a training frequency of 2 sessions/week is sufficient for REHIT to improve V̇O2max. We demonstrate that reducing REHIT training frequency from 3 or 4 to 2 sessions/week does not attenuate improvements in the key health marker of V̇O2max. Key words: V̇O2max; sprint interval training; SIT; Wingate sprint; exercise; healt

Exercise training comprising of single 20-s cycle sprints does not provide a sufficient stimulus for improving maximal aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals

Purpose: Sprint interval training (SIT) provides a potent stimulus for improving maximal aerobic capacity ([Formula: see text]), which is among the strongest markers for future cardiovascular health and premature mortality. Cycling-based SIT protocols involving six or more 'all-out' 30-s Wingate sprints per training session improve [Formula: see text], but we have recently demonstrated that similar improvements in [Formula: see text] can be achieved with as few as two 20-s sprints. This suggests that the volume of sprint exercise has limited influence on subsequent training adaptations. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine whether a single 20-s cycle sprint per training session can provide a sufficient stimulus for improving [Formula: see text]. Methods: Thirty sedentary or recreationally active participants (10 men/20 women; mean ± SD age: 24 ± 6 years, BMI: 22.6 ± 4.0 kg m(-2), [Formula: see text]: 33 ± 7 mL kg(-1) min(-1)) were randomised to a training group or a no-intervention control group. Training involved three exercise sessions per week for 4 weeks, consisting of a single 20-s Wingate sprint (no warm-up or cool-down). [Formula: see text] was determined prior to training and 3 days following the final training session. Results: Mean [Formula: see text] did not significantly change in the training group (2.15 ± 0.62 vs. 2.22 ± 0.64 L min(-1)) or the control group (2.07 ± 0.69 vs. 2.08 ± 0.68 L min(-1); effect of time: P = 0.17; group × time interaction effect: P = 0.26). Conclusion: Although we have previously demonstrated that regularly performing two repeated 20-s 'all-out' cycle sprints provides a sufficient training stimulus for a robust increase in [Formula: see text], our present study suggests that this is not the case when training sessions are limited to a single sprint

Research into the Health Benefits of Sprint Interval Training Should Focus on Protocols with Fewer and Shorter Sprints

Over the past decade, it has been convincingly shown that regularly performing repeated brief supramaximal cycle sprints (sprint interval training [SIT]) is associated with aerobic adaptations and health benefits similar to or greater than with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). SIT is often promoted as a time-efficient exercise strategy, but the most commonly studied SIT protocol (4–6 repeated 30-s Wingate sprints with 4 min recovery, here referred to as ‘classic’ SIT) takes up to approximately 30 min per session. Combined with high associated perceived exertion, this makes classic SIT unsuitable as an alternative/adjunct to current exercise recommendations involving MICT. However, there are no indications that the design of the classic SIT protocol has been based on considerations regarding the lowest number or shortest duration of sprints to optimise time efficiency while retaining the associated health benefits. In recent years, studies have shown that novel SIT protocols with both fewer and shorter sprints are efficacious at improving important risk factors of noncommunicable diseases in sedentary individuals, and provide health benefits that are no worse than those associated with classic SIT. These shorter/easier protocols have the potential to remove many of the common barriers to exercise in the general population. Thus, based on the evidence summarised in this current opinion paper, we propose that there is a need for a fundamental change in focus in SIT research in order to move away from further characterising the classic SIT protocol and towards establishing acceptable and effective protocols that involve minimal sprint durations and repetitions