The current study examined the adaptive response to both endurance (END) and sprint interval training (SIT) in a group of twenty-one recreationally active adults. All participants completed three weeks (four days/ week) of both END (30 minutes at ~65% VO2peak work rate (WR) and SIT (eight, 20-second intervals at ~170% VO2peak WR separated by 10 seconds of active rest) following a randomized crossover study design with a three-month washout period between training interventions. While a main effect of training was observed for VO2peak, lactate threshold, and submaximal heart rate (HR), considerable variability was observed in the individual responses to both END and SIT. No significant positive relationships were observed between END and SIT for individual changes in any variable. Non-responses were determined using two times the typical error (TE) of measurement for VO2peak (0.107 L/min), lactate threshold (15.7 W), and submaximal HR (10.7bpm). Non-responders in VO2peak, lactate threshold, and submaximal HR were observed following both END and SIT, however, the individual patterns of response differed following END and SIT. Interestingly, all individuals responded in at least one variable when exposed to both END and SIT. These results suggest that the individual response to exercise training is highly variable following different training protocols and that the incidence of non-response to exercise training may be reduced by changing the training stimulus for non-responders to three weeks of END or SIT.

There is heterogeneity in the observed O2peak 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 O2peak 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 min of high intensity efforts per session. Low-volume HIIT/Sprint Interval Training (SIT) included studies using less than 15 min of high intensity efforts per session. In total, 677 participants across 18 aerobic exercise training interventions from eight different universities in five 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 O2peak at the group level (P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, high-volume HIIT had a significantly greater (P < 0.05) absolute O2peak increase (0.29 L/min) compared to MICT (0.20 L/min) and low-volume HIIT/SIT (0.18 L/min). Adjusted relative O2peak 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 O2peak explained only 17.3% of the variance in O2peak trainability. In conclusion, high-volume HIIT had more likely responders to improvements in O2peak compared to low-volume HIIT/SIT and MICT.

The current study sought to explore the incidence of nonresponders for maximal or submaximal performance following a variety of sprint interval training (SIT) protocols. Data from 63 young adults from 5 previously published studies were utilized in the current analysis. Nonresponders were identified using 2 times the typical error (TE) of measurement for peak oxygen uptake (2 × TE = 1.74 mL/(kg·min)), lactate threshold (2 × TE = 15.7 W), or 500 kcal time-to-completion (TTC; 2 × TE = 306 s) trial. TE was determined on separate groups of participants by calculating the test-retest variance for each outcome. The overall rate of nonresponders for peak oxygen uptake across all participants studied was 22% (14/63) with 4 adverse responders observed. No nonresponders for peak oxygen uptake were observed in studies where participants trained 4 times per week (n = 18), while higher rates were observed in most studies requiring training 3 times per week (30%-50%; n = 45). A nonresponse rate of 44% (8/18) and 50% (11/22) was observed for the TTC test and lactate threshold, respectively. No significant correlations were observed between the changes in peak oxygen uptake and TTC (r = 0.014; p = 0.96) or lactate threshold (r = 0.17; p = 0.44). The current analysis demonstrates a significant incidence of nonresponders for peak oxygen uptake and heterogeneity in the individual patterns of response following SIT. Additionally, these data support the importance of training dose and suggest that the incidence of nonresponse may be mitigated by utilizing the optimal dose of SIT.

Calculating the standard deviation of individual responses (SD IR ) is recommended for estimating the magnitude of individual differences in training responsiveness in parallel‐arm exercise randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this review article is to discuss potential limitations of parallel‐arm exercise RCTs that may confound/complicate the interpretation of the SD IR . To provide context for this discussion, we define the sources of variation that contribute to variability in the observed responses to exercise training and review the assumptions that underlie the interpretation of SD IR as a reflection of true individual differences in training responsiveness. This review also contains two novel analyses: (1) we demonstrate differences in variability in changes in diet and physical activity habits across an intervention period in both exercise and control groups, and (2) we examined participant dropout data from six RCTs and found that significantly ( P < 0.001) more participants in control groups (12.8%) dropped out due to dissatisfaction with group assignment compared to exercise groups (3.4%). These novel analyses raise the possibility that the magnitude of within‐subject variability may not be equal between exercise and control groups. Overall, this review highlights that potential limitations of parallel‐arm exercise RCTs can violate the underlying assumptions of the SD IR and suggests that these limitations should be considered when interpreting the SD IR as an estimate of true individual differences in training responsiveness.

We examined maximal oxygen consumption responses following exercise training to demonstrate the limitations associated with threshold‐based dichotomous classification of responders and non‐responders and proposed alternative methods for classification. Specifically, we: 1) calculated individual probabilities of response, and 2) classified individuals using response confidence intervals (CI) and reference points of zero and a smallest worthwhile change of 0.5 METs. Our findings support the use of individual probabilities and individual CIs to improve the accuracy in non‐response classification.