Running slow or running fast; that is the question: The merits of high-intensity interval training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Running slow or running fast; that is the question:The merits of high-intensity interval trainingIn a recent issue of the Journal of Sport and Health Science, García-Pinillos et al. 1 reviewed evidence on the effects of highintensity intermittent training (interval training) (HIIT) on muscular and performance adaptations in recreational runners.They found that HIIT causes beneficial effects on running performance, including increased oxygen uptake capacity, and likely reduces running-related injuries because of the decreased work volume and training time.Recent evidence suggests that as little as 3 × 20 s full-out cycle sprints per session performed 3 times per week over a 12-week period had the same health and performance benefits as 45 min of continuous cycling at 70% of the maximal oxygen uptake capacity (also 3 times per week and for 12 weeks).2 However, we do not need to go to well-controlled physiological studies to realize the enormous benefits of interval training.Ever since the flying Finn, Paavo Nurmi, 9 times Olympic gold medal winner between 1920 and 1928, used short sprints to improve his running abilities, interval training has become the norm in middle and long distance running.For a time, it appeared that every major improvement of middle and long distance world records was associated with a new discovery in interval training.The only person to ever win the 5000 m, 10,000 m, and marathon race at the same Olympic Games (Helsinki, 1952), Emil Zátopek, was famous for his grueling 60 × 400 m interval training sessions.Aside from improving athletic performance, HIIT seems to provide health benefits, 3 reduce the risk for injury in runners, 1 improve recovery in patients following heart failure, 4 and produce beneficial adaptations in young and old. 5 For the nonscientific-minded, there may be another reason why sprint and HIIT is good for you: it allows you to run fast!As a competitive runner for over 50 years, I still love the thrill of feeling the speed under my feet, the pressure running around the bend, to be as fast as I used to be over 800 or 1500 m, even though I can barely maintain that speed for 50 m now.It is a
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".