Skip to content

Study note

Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Sprint Interval Training on Factors Related to Endurance Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PMID 41740126 (2026): high, intensity — Running economy, Injury risk (study note for endurance athletes).

Updated Jul 22, 2026

Read the study note

Study note • PMID 41740126

Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Sprint Interval Training on Factors Related to Endurance Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Journal of strength and conditioning research2026 • DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000005374

How to use this page

This note summarizes one study record. Check the participants, methods, results, and limitations before applying it to training.

  • Design signal: systematic review / meta-analysis.
  • Population relevance: athlete/trained context.
  • Consistency: synthesis evidence present.
  • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.

ELI5

In plain language

Xiao, Y, Li, J, Deng, Z, and Gao, W. (systematic review / meta-analysis; n=460 trained athletes).

In this systematic review / meta-analysis, the abstract suggests a positive relationship with Running economy. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • Study question: Xiao, Y, Li, J, Deng, Z, and Gao, W.
  • In this systematic review / meta-analysis, the abstract suggests a positive relationship with Running economy.
  • Population: n=460 trained athletes.
  • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 2 weeks • 8 weeks • 4 minutes • 5 minutes.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: high, intensity.
  • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 2 weeks • 8 weeks • 4 minutes • 5 minutes.
  • Outcomes: Running economy, Injury risk.
  • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.

Fit

Who it may help, and who should be cautious

Who it helps

  • Athletes similar to the study population (n=460 trained athletes) working on strength.
  • Athletes who can measure Running economy, Injury risk with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.

Who should be cautious

  • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
  • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.

Methods

What the study actually did

  • Design: systematic review / meta-analysis.
  • Population: n=460 trained athletes.
  • Outcomes measured: Running economy, Injury risk.
  • Protocol cues mentioned: 2 weeks • 8 weeks • 4 minutes • 5 minutes.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 41740126 (2026) — Journal of strength and conditioning research.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

Furthermore, HIIT resulted in greater improvements in time trial performance compared with SIT in moderately trained individuals.

Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.

Limits

Limitations and bias

  • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
  • Reviews and consensus statements mix protocols and populations; recommendations may not match your exact constraints.
  • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
  • This is performance information, not medical advice.

Adaptive AI coach for iPhone

Meet your adaptive AI coach.

Tell your coach what you are training for. It builds the plan, follows the work you complete, and adapts upcoming training when recovery, your schedule, or real life changes.

Keep going

Sources