Can Popular High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) Models Lead to Impossible Training Sessions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is a time-efficient training method suggested to improve health and fitness for the clinical population, healthy subjects, and athletes. Many parameters can impact the difficulty of HIIT sessions. This study aims to highlight and explain, through logical deductions, some limitations of the Skiba and Coggan models, widely used to prescribe HIIT sessions in cycling. We simulated 6198 different HIIT training sessions leading to exhaustion, according to the Skiba and Coggan-Modified (modification of the Coggan model with the introduction of an exhaustion criterion) models, for three fictitious athlete profiles (Time-Trialist, All-Rounder, Sprinter). The simulation revealed impossible sessions (i.e., requiring athletes to surpass their maximal power output over the exercise interval duration), characterized by a few short exercise intervals, performed in the severe and extreme intensity domains, alternating with long recovery bouts. The fraction of impossible sessions depends on the athlete profile and ranges between 4.4 and 22.9% for the Skiba model and 0.6 and 3.2% for the Coggan-Modified model. For practitioners using these HIIT models, this study highlights the importance of understanding these models' inherent limitations and mathematical assumptions to draw adequate conclusions from their use to prescribe HIIT sessions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".