Investigating the reproducibility of maximal oxygen uptake responses to high-intensity interval training

Giudice, Michael Del; Bonafiglia, Jacob T.; Islam, Hashim; Preobrazenski, Nicholas; Amato, Alessandra; Gurd, Brendon J.

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2019.09.007

Cited by 28 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The demonstration that chronic exercise response variability appears to be a consequence of random error rather than individual inherent trainability extends our work on acute exercise responses(Islam et al, 2019). Of note, we have recently demonstrated poor repeatability of training-induced changes in cardiorespiratory fitness after high-intensity interval training(Del Giudice et al, 2020), suggesting that the influence of random error on training adaptation is not unique to resistance training.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Exercise response variability: Random error or true differences in exercise response?

Islam

Gurd

2020

Experimental Physiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Exercise response variability: Random error or true differences in exercise response?

Islam

Gurd

2020

Experimental Physiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The observation that most ES IR values (18/25) lay below or crossed zero (Figure 3) adds to a growing body of literature questioning the presence of interindividual differences in trainability following standardized exercise training (Williamson et al, 2017(Williamson et al, , 2018Del Giudice et al, 2020;Kelley et al, 2020Kelley et al, , 2021Bonafiglia et al, 2021a;Islam et al, 2021). For example, we recently reported wide-ranging changes in energy intake, diet composition, and sedentary time following a controlled exercise intervention (Bonafiglia et al, 2019a).…”

Section: Interindividual Differences In Trainabilitymentioning

confidence: 86%

“…This apparent variability in behavioral changes suggests that within-subject variability contributes substantially to the variability in observed responses. Recent studies have also demonstrated that individual cardiorespiratory fitness and skeletal muscle responses appear non-reproducible following repeated exposure to an identical exercise training intervention ( Lindholm et al, 2016 ; Del Giudice et al, 2020 ; Islam et al, 2021 ). Assuming trainability of an individual is a stable and reproducible trait, this non-reproducibility provides further evidence suggesting that within-subject variability largely comprises the variability in observed responses ( Hecksteden et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to classifying individual responses, labeling someone as a “non-responder” to exercise should be avoided because individuals can: (1) demonstrate individual patterns of response across a range of outcomes [e.g., the VO 2 max of an individual may “respond” positively while their body fat percentage may “not respond” ( Barber et al, 2021 )], (2) respond differently following different exercise doses ( Bonafiglia et al, 2016 ; Montero and Lundby, 2017 ; Marsh et al, 2020 ), or (3) respond differently to repeated exposure to the same training intervention ( Del Giudice et al, 2020 ). Further, given the difficulty in delineating changes caused by exercise vs. behavioral or environmental factors, “responders” and “non-responders” should not be interpreted as individuals who responded or did not respond to exercise per se ( Swinton et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review Examining the Approaches Used to Estimate Interindividual Differences in Trainability and Classify Individual Responses to Exercise Training

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Many reports describe statistical approaches for estimating interindividual differences in trainability and classifying individuals as “responders” or “non-responders.” The extent to which studies in the exercise training literature have adopted these statistical approaches remains unclear.Objectives: This systematic review primarily sought to determine the extent to which studies in the exercise training literature have adopted sound statistical approaches for examining individual responses to exercise training. We also (1) investigated the existence of interindividual differences in trainability, and (2) tested the hypothesis that less conservative thresholds inflate response rates compared with thresholds that consider error and a smallest worthwhile change (SWC)/minimum clinically important difference (MCID).Methods: We searched six databases: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, and SportDiscus. Our search spanned the aerobic, resistance, and clinical or rehabilitation training literature. Studies were included if they used human participants, employed standardized and supervised exercise training, and either: (1) stated that their exercise training intervention resulted in heterogenous responses, (2) statistically estimated interindividual differences in trainability, and/or (3) classified individual responses. We calculated effect sizes (ESIR) to examine the presence of interindividual differences in trainability. We also compared response rates (n = 614) across classification approaches that considered neither, one of, or both errors and an SWC or MCID. We then sorted response rates from studies that also reported mean changes and response thresholds (n = 435 response rates) into four quartiles to confirm our ancillary hypothesis that larger mean changes produce larger response rates.Results: Our search revealed 3,404 studies, and 149 were included in our systematic review. Few studies (n = 9) statistically estimated interindividual differences in trainability. The results from these few studies present a mixture of evidence for the presence of interindividual differences in trainability because several ESIR values lay above, below, or crossed zero. Zero-based thresholds and larger mean changes significantly (both p < 0.01) inflated response rates.Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence demonstrating why future studies should statistically estimate interindividual differences in trainability and consider error and an SWC or MCID when classifying individual responses to exercise training.Systematic Review Registration: [website], identifier [registration number].

show abstract

“…Accordingly, there is an ongoing debate on the most appropriate, rigorous and feasible techniques [8,19,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Various questions and concerns have emerged, including the ability to truly isolate the impact of exercise training, the nature of individual responses in relation to mean group changes, and the utility of individual response research [20,[29][30][31][32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Directions for Exercise Treatment Response Heterogeneity and Individual Response Research

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment response heterogeneity and individual responses following exercise training are topics of interest for personalized medicine. Proposed methods to determine the contribution of exercise to the magnitude of treatment response heterogeneity and categorizing participants have expanded and evolved. Setting clear research objectives and having a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the available methods are vital to ensure the correct study design and analytical approach are used. Doing so will ensure contributions to the field are conducted as rigorously as possible. Nonetheless, concerns have emerged regarding the ability to truly isolate the impact of exercise training, and the nature of individual responses in relation to mean group changes. The purpose of this review is threefold. First, the strengths and limitations associated with current methods for quantifying the contribution of exercise to observed treatment response heterogeneity will be discussed. Second, current methods used to categorize participants based on their response to exercise will be outlined, as well as proposed mechanisms for factors that contribute to response variation. Finally, this review will provide an overview of some current issues at the forefront of individual response research.

show abstract

Investigating the reproducibility of maximal oxygen uptake responses to high-intensity interval training

Cited by 28 publications

References 27 publications

Exercise response variability: Random error or true differences in exercise response?

Exercise response variability: Random error or true differences in exercise response?

A Systematic Review Examining the Approaches Used to Estimate Interindividual Differences in Trainability and Classify Individual Responses to Exercise Training

Directions for Exercise Treatment Response Heterogeneity and Individual Response Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About