↓ Skip to main content

High-Intensity Interval Training, Solutions to the Programming Puzzle

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
198 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
468 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1660 Mendeley
Title
High-Intensity Interval Training, Solutions to the Programming Puzzle
Published in
Sports Medicine, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40279-013-0066-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Buchheit, Paul B. Laursen

Abstract

High-intensity interval training (HIT) is a well-known, time-efficient training method for improving cardiorespiratory and metabolic function and, in turn, physical performance in athletes. HIT involves repeated short (<45 s) to long (2-4 min) bouts of rather high-intensity exercise interspersed with recovery periods (refer to the previously published first part of this review). While athletes have used 'classical' HIT formats for nearly a century (e.g. repetitions of 30 s of exercise interspersed with 30 s of rest, or 2-4-min interval repetitions ran at high but still submaximal intensities), there is today a surge of research interest focused on examining the effects of short sprints and all-out efforts, both in the field and in the laboratory. Prescription of HIT consists of the manipulation of at least nine variables (e.g. work interval intensity and duration, relief interval intensity and duration, exercise modality, number of repetitions, number of series, between-series recovery duration and intensity); any of which has a likely effect on the acute physiological response. Manipulating HIT appropriately is important, not only with respect to the expected middle- to long-term physiological and performance adaptations, but also to maximize daily and/or weekly training periodization. Cardiopulmonary responses are typically the first variables to consider when programming HIT (refer to Part I). However, anaerobic glycolytic energy contribution and neuromuscular load should also be considered to maximize the training outcome. Contrasting HIT formats that elicit similar (and maximal) cardiorespiratory responses have been associated with distinctly different anaerobic energy contributions. The high locomotor speed/power requirements of HIT (i.e. ≥95 % of the minimal velocity/power that elicits maximal oxygen uptake [v/p(·)VO(2max)] to 100 % of maximal sprinting speed or power) and the accumulation of high-training volumes at high-exercise intensity (runners can cover up to 6-8 km at v(·)VO(2max) per session) can cause significant strain on the neuromuscular/musculoskeletal system. For athletes training twice a day, and/or in team sport players training a number of metabolic and neuromuscular systems within a weekly microcycle, this added physiological strain should be considered in light of the other physical and technical/tactical sessions, so as to avoid overload and optimize adaptation (i.e. maximize a given training stimulus and minimize musculoskeletal pain and/or injury risk). In this part of the review, the different aspects of HIT programming are discussed, from work/relief interval manipulation to HIT periodization, using different examples of training cycles from different sports, with continued reference to the cardiorespiratory adaptations outlined in Part I, as well as to anaerobic glycolytic contribution and neuromuscular/musculoskeletal load.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 198 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,660 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 7 <1%
Brazil 7 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Singapore 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 1624 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 335 20%
Student > Bachelor 257 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 174 10%
Researcher 117 7%
Student > Postgraduate 96 6%
Other 305 18%
Unknown 376 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 876 53%
Medicine and Dentistry 113 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 3%
Social Sciences 30 2%
Other 115 7%
Unknown 414 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 188. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2023.
All research outputs
#213,945
of 25,591,967 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#196
of 2,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,352
of 207,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,591,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 207,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.