Scholarlink

Background <p>Accumulated time ≥ 90% of maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O<sub>2</sub>max) during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) represents a key stimulus for aerobic adaptations. Thus, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare different HIIT protocol structures with respect to accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O<sub>2</sub>max using direct and indirect evidence.</p> Methods <p>We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus up to January 31st, 2026 for controlled HIIT studies reporting accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O₂max in healthy athletes. HIIT protocols were classified using predefined operational rules based on interval duration, work-to-rest structure, intensity pattern, and within-session progression. We conducted a frequentist NMA using standardized mean differences (SMD) within a random effects model, with even long intervals as the reference condition, and added local inconsistency and contribution diagnostics.</p> Results <p>Nineteen publications contributed 20 study units, including 240 athletes (25.5 ± 5.3 years; V̇O₂max 60.5 ± 8.1&#xa0;ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹). The network demonstrated substantial heterogeneity and significant inconsistency (I² = 69.2%, 95% CI 49.9% to 81.0%; total Q = 55.12, df = 17, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001; between-design Q = 20.78, df = 6, <i>p</i> = 0.002). None of the HIIT approaches differed significantly from even long intervals in accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O₂max. Point estimates were highest for decreased-duration (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI -0.30 to 2.04) and varied-intensity protocols (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI -0.42 to 1.49), whereas 1:1 blocks showed the lowest point estimate (SMD = -0.68, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.04). P-score ranking favored decreased-duration (89.6%), followed by varied-intensity (76.7%) and decreased-intensity protocols (68.4%), while 1:1 blocks ranked lowest (2.8%).</p> Conclusion <p>No HIIT protocol structure showed clear superiority for accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O₂max. Decreased-duration and varied-intensity protocols ranked highest, but these rankings were exploratory because all reference comparisons were statistically non-significant and the network showed substantial heterogeneity, significant inconsistency, and sparse evidence for several nodes. Protocol selection should therefore prioritize feasibility, athlete characteristics, and workload-matching considerations rather than ranking alone.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of high-intensity interval training protocol designs on accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O₂max: a network meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月21日

查看全文
  • Steffen Held,
  • Ludwig Rappelt,
  • Florian Micke,
  • Tim Wiedenmann,
  • Lars Donath

摘要

Background

Accumulated time ≥ 90% of maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) represents a key stimulus for aerobic adaptations. Thus, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare different HIIT protocol structures with respect to accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O2max using direct and indirect evidence.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus up to January 31st, 2026 for controlled HIIT studies reporting accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O₂max in healthy athletes. HIIT protocols were classified using predefined operational rules based on interval duration, work-to-rest structure, intensity pattern, and within-session progression. We conducted a frequentist NMA using standardized mean differences (SMD) within a random effects model, with even long intervals as the reference condition, and added local inconsistency and contribution diagnostics.

Results

Nineteen publications contributed 20 study units, including 240 athletes (25.5 ± 5.3 years; V̇O₂max 60.5 ± 8.1 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹). The network demonstrated substantial heterogeneity and significant inconsistency (I² = 69.2%, 95% CI 49.9% to 81.0%; total Q = 55.12, df = 17, p < 0.0001; between-design Q = 20.78, df = 6, p = 0.002). None of the HIIT approaches differed significantly from even long intervals in accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O₂max. Point estimates were highest for decreased-duration (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI -0.30 to 2.04) and varied-intensity protocols (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI -0.42 to 1.49), whereas 1:1 blocks showed the lowest point estimate (SMD = -0.68, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.04). P-score ranking favored decreased-duration (89.6%), followed by varied-intensity (76.7%) and decreased-intensity protocols (68.4%), while 1:1 blocks ranked lowest (2.8%).

Conclusion

No HIIT protocol structure showed clear superiority for accumulated time ≥ 90% V̇O₂max. Decreased-duration and varied-intensity protocols ranked highest, but these rankings were exploratory because all reference comparisons were statistically non-significant and the network showed substantial heterogeneity, significant inconsistency, and sparse evidence for several nodes. Protocol selection should therefore prioritize feasibility, athlete characteristics, and workload-matching considerations rather than ranking alone.