The effects of short sprint interval training (sSIT) with efforts of ≤10 s on maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O2max), aerobic and anaerobic performances remain unknown. To verify the effectiveness of sSIT in physically active adults and athletes, a systematic literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). The databases PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus were systematically searched on May 9, 2020, and updated on September 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were based on PICO and included healthy athletes and active adults of any sex (≤40 years), performing supervised sSIT (≤10 s of “all‐out” and non‐“all‐out” efforts) of at least 2 weeks, with a minimum of 6 sessions. As a comparator, a non‐sSIT control group, another high‐intensity interval training (HIIT) group, or a continuous training (CT) group were required. A total of 18 studies were deemed eligible. The estimated SMDs based on the random‐effects model were −0.56 (95% CI: −0.79, −0.33, p < 0.001) for V̇O2max, −0.43 (95% CI: −0.67, −0.20, p < 0.001) for aerobic performance, and −0.44 (95% CI: −0.70, −0.18, p < 0.001) for anaerobic performance after sSIT vs. no exercise/usual training. However, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) for all outcomes when comparing sSIT vs. HIIT/CT. Our findings indicate a very high effectiveness of sSIT protocols in different exercise modes (e.g., cycling, running, paddling, and punching) to improve V̇O2max, aerobic, and anaerobic performances in physically active young healthy adults and athletes.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Background: To the authors’ knowledge, there have been no studies comparing the acute responses to “all out” efforts in concentric (isoinertial) vs. eccentric (isovelocity) cycling. Methods: After two familiarization sessions, 12 physically active men underwent the experimental protocols consisting of a 2-min warm-up and 8 maximal efforts of 5 s, separated by 55 s of active recovery at 80 rpm, in concentric vs. eccentric cycling. Comparisons between protocols were conducted during, immediately after, and 24-h post-sessions. Results: Mechanical (Work: 82,824 ± 6350 vs. 60,602 ± 8904 J) and cardiometabolic responses (mean HR: 68.8 ± 6.6 vs. 51.3 ± 5.7% HRmax, lactate: 4.9 ± 2.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.6 mmol/L) were larger in concentric cycling (p < 0.001). The perceptual responses to both protocols were similarly low. Immediately after concentric cycling, vertical jump was potentiated (p = 0.028). Muscle soreness (VAS; p = 0.016) and thigh circumference (p = 0.045) were slightly increased only 24-h after eccentric cycling. Serum concentrations of CK, BAG3, and MMP-13 did not change significantly post-exercise. Conclusions: These results suggest the appropriateness of the eccentric cycling protocol used as a time-efficient (i.e., ~60 kJ in 10 min) and safe (i.e., without exercise-induced muscle damage) alternative to be used with different populations in future longitudinal interventions.

Seipp, D, Feuerbacher, JF, Jacobs, MW, Dragutinovic, B, and Schumann, M. Acute effects of high-intensity interval running on lower-body and upper-body explosive strength and throwing velocity in handball players. J Strength Cond Res 36(11): 3167–3172, 2022—The purpose of this study was to determine the acute effects of handball-specific high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on explosive strength and throwing velocity, after varying periods of recovery. Fourteen highly trained male handball players (age: 25.4 (26.2 ± 4.2) performed HIIT consisting of repeated 15-second shuttle runs at 90% of final running speed (VIFT) to exhaustion. Upper-body and lower-body explosive strength and throwing velocities were measured before and immediately after HIIT, as well as after 6 hours. These tests included 3 repetitions of both bench press and squat exercise at 60% of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) as well as 3 repetitions of the set shot without run up and jump shot, respectively. Explosive squat performance was significantly reduced at post (−5.48%, p = 0.026) but not at 6 h (−0.24%, p = 1.000). Explosive bench press performance remained statistically unaltered at post (0.32%, p = 1.000) and at 6 hour (1.96%, p = 1.000). This was also observed in the subsequent throws both immediately after (−0.60%, p = 1.000) (−0.31%, p = 1.000) and at 6 h (−1.58%, p = 1.000) (1.51%, p = 0.647). Our data show a reduction in explosive strength of the lower but not upper extremities when preceded by running HIIT. Since throwing velocity was not affected by intense lower-body exercise, combining lower-body HIIT and throwing practice may be of no concern in highly trained handball players.

Purpose: We aimed at investigating the acute effects of lower-body high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on upper- and lower-body explosive strength assessed by mean propulsive velocity (MPV) in naturally menstruating women. In addition, we assessed the combination of lower-body HIIT and squat, as well as lower-body HIIT and bench press, on bench press and squat MPV. Methods: Thirteen women (age: 23 [2] y, menstrual cycle length: 28.4 [2.0] d) completed 2 training modalities on separate days (separated by 30 [4.2] d) consisting of HIIT followed by lower-body (HIIT + LBS) or upper-body (HIIT + UBS) strength loading. Squat and bench press MPV were assessed before HIIT (T0), after HIIT (T1), after the strength loading (T2), and 24 hours postloading (T3). Results: Mixed factorial analysis of variance indicated a significant effect for time in bench press and squat (P < .001) but not for interaction. Pairwise comparison showed that bench press MPV remained unchanged (P = 1.000) at T1 but was reduced at T2 compared with T0 (HIIT + LBS: −8.2% [3.9%], HIIT + UBS: −13.8% [12.1%], P < .001) and T1 (HIIT + LBS: −7.1% [3.2%], HIIT + UBS: −12.7% [8.7%], P < .001). Squat MPV decreased at T1 (HIIT + LBS: −6.0% [8.8%], HIIT + UBS: −4.8% [5.4%], P = .009) and was found to be decreased at T2 compared with T0 in both conditions (HIIT + LBS: −6.9% [3.3%], HIIT + UBS: −7.4% [6.1%], P < .001) but not compared with T1 (P = 1.000). Bench press and squat MPV returned to baseline at T3 compared with T0 (P > .050). Conclusion: Lower- but not upper-body explosive strength was reduced by HIIT. HIIT combined with upper- or lower-body strength loading resulted in a reduction of squat and bench press explosive strength.