Physiological basis of brief, intense interval training to enhance maximal oxygen uptake: a mini-review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief, intense interval training describes a style of exercise characterized by short bouts of strenuous effort interspersed with recovery periods. The method increases whole body maximal oxygen uptake (V̇o2max), but the underlying physiological basis is unclear. V̇o2max represents the functional limit of the integrative oxygen cascade, which refers to the physiological steps involved in oxygen transport and utilization from atmospheric air to mitochondrial metabolism. There is insufficient evidence to definitively state which steps in the oxygen cascade are responsible for the improvement in V̇o2max after brief, intense interval training. Studies typically focus on specific physiological variables that are often characterized as “central” or “peripheral” based in part on their location in the body. Recent work suggests that training for ≥6 wk improves V̇o2max in part by increasing maximal cardiac output and expanding blood volume, responses that are expected to augment central oxygen delivery. Other responses to brief, intense interval training, including increased capillary and mitochondrial density, may contribute to increases in V̇o2max via enhanced skeletal muscle oxygen extraction and/or increased muscle diffusing capacity. This is especially evident after relatively short-term training and despite no change in central oxygen delivery factors. Mechanistic investigations, particularly employing contemporary technologies, are needed to advance our understanding of the early time course of the V̇o2max response to brief, intense interval training and the extent to which changes in specific oxygen cascade processes compare with traditional endurance training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".