Reducing Sprint Interval Volume Does Not Elicit Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sprint-interval training (SIT) utilizing various interval durations (8 s – 30 s) has resulted in positive body composition changes, potentially due to elevated post-exercise energy expenditure (EE). Recent work utilizing a manipulated sprint bout (5 s) and recovery length (40 s) while maintaining the 2 min of exercise during an 18 min session demonstrated similar during and post-exercise EE as traditional SIT (4 x 30 sec sprints with 4 min rest). PURPOSE: To determine if a reduced volume of SIT elicits a protracted excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) response. METHODS: Five males (23.0±3.4 y, 178.8±6.4 cm, 78.8±8.8 kg, 4.1±0.3 L·min-1) had their VO2 measured during and for 3 h following one control session and 3 exercise sessions (all sprint intervals were 5 sec “all-out” efforts separated by 40 sec recovery): 1) 2 min exercise (24 sprints, 18 min session); 2) 1.5 min exercise (18 sprints, 13.5 min session); 3) 1 min exercise (12 sprints, 9 min session); and 4) non-exercise control (CTRL). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare during exercise EE (kcal), post-exercise EE (kcal), and EPOC (L O2). EE was estimated from VO2 assuming 5 kcal per L O2 consumed. RESULTS: During exercise EE for 2 min (218.9±18.3 kcal) was greater than 1.5 (150.0±14.2 kcal, P=0.001) and 1 min (94.3±13.2 kcal, P<0.001). All were elevated above CTRL (27.4±2.8 kcal, P<0.001). At one h post-exercise, all sessions exhibited similar EPOC (2 min: 4.84±1.12; 1.5 min: 2.90±2.22; 1 min: 3.14±1.96 L O2; P<0.076). At 2 h post, EPOC was increased in the 2 min session (2.26±0.84 L O2) compared to both 1.5 min (0.00±1.20; P=0.008) and 1 min (0.44±0.72, P=0.049). However, at 3 h post, EPOC was not different between groups (P>0.136). Total session (during and post-exercise) EE was greater for 2 min (678.5±57.0 kcal) compared to 1.5 min (575.6±33.4; P=0.016) and 1 min (523.5±45.1; P<0.001), which were all elevated above CTRL (378.8±35.7; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: These preliminary data demonstrate that shorter SIT bouts (5 s) with reduced recovery (40 s) require a minimum duration of exercise (2 min) to maintain EPOC beyond 1 h, which may be important for improving body composition with SIT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".