{"doi":"10.1111/sms.14470","title":"Aerobic <scp>high‐intensity</scp> intervals improve V̇O<sub>2max</sub> more than supramaximal sprint intervals in females, similar to males","abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>Maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub>) is a pivotal factor for aerobic endurance performance. Recently, aerobic high‐intensity interval training (HIIT) was documented to be superior to sprint interval training (SIT) in improving V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub> in well‐trained males. However, as mounting evidence suggests that physiological responses to training are sex‐dependent, examining the effects of HIIT versus SIT on V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub>, anaerobic capacity, and endurance performance in females is warranted.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We randomized 81 aerobically well‐trained females (22 ± 2 years, 51.8 ± 3.6 mL∙kg<jats:sup>−1</jats:sup>∙min<jats:sup>−1</jats:sup> V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub>), training three times weekly for 8 weeks, to well‐established protocols: (1) HIIT 4 × 4 min at ~95% of maximal aerobic speed (MAS), with 3 min active recovery (2) SIT 8 × 20 s at ~150% of MAS, with 10 s passive recovery (3) SIT 10 × 30 s at ~175% of MAS, with 3.5 min active recovery.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Only HIIT 4 × 4 min increased V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub> (7.3 ± 3.1%), different from both SIT groups (all <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). Anaerobic capacity (maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) increased following SIT 8 × 20 s (6.5 ± 10.5%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05), SIT 10 × 30 s (14.4 ± 13.7%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05; different from HIIT 4 × 4 min, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). SIT 10 × 30 s resulted in eight training‐induced injuries, different from no injuries following HIIT 4 × 4 min and SIT 8 × 20 s (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). All groups improved long‐distance (3000‐meter) and sprint (300‐meter) running performance (all <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). SIT protocols improved sprint performance more than HIIT 4 × 4 min (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). Compared to previous male results, no increase in V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub> following SIT 8 × 20 s (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.01), and a higher injury rate for SIT 10 × 30 s (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001), were evident.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>In aerobically well‐trained women, HIIT is superior to SIT in increasing V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub> while all‐out treadmill running SIT is potentially more harmful.</jats:p></jats:sec>","journal":"Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &amp; Science in Sports","year":2023,"id":672928,"datarank":0.40620753016533157,"base_score":2.70805020110221,"endowment":2.70805020110221,"self_citation_contribution":0.40620753016533157,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.40620753016533157,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":14,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1758201,"name":"Håkon Hov","orcid":"0000-0003-2976-2079","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1758202,"name":"Håkon Mehus","orcid":null,"position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1758203,"name":"Bård Balto","orcid":null,"position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1758204,"name":"Anders Boye","orcid":null,"position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1758205,"name":"Lars Finsås","orcid":null,"position":5,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1758206,"name":"Jan Hoff","orcid":null,"position":6,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":369098,"name":"Eivind Wang","orcid":"0000-0002-6322-2159","position":7,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1758200,"name":"Jan Helgerud","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"Aerobic <scp>high‐intensity</scp> intervals improve V̇O<sub>2max</sub> more than supramaximal sprint intervals in females, similar to males","abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>Maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub>) is a pivotal factor for aerobic endurance performance. Recently, aerobic high‐intensity interval training (HIIT) was documented to be superior to sprint interval training (SIT) in improving V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub> in well‐trained males. However, as mounting evidence suggests that physiological responses to training are sex‐dependent, examining the effects of HIIT versus SIT on V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub>, anaerobic capacity, and endurance performance in females is warranted.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We randomized 81 aerobically well‐trained females (22 ± 2 years, 51.8 ± 3.6 mL∙kg<jats:sup>−1</jats:sup>∙min<jats:sup>−1</jats:sup> V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub>), training three times weekly for 8 weeks, to well‐established protocols: (1) HIIT 4 × 4 min at ~95% of maximal aerobic speed (MAS), with 3 min active recovery (2) SIT 8 × 20 s at ~150% of MAS, with 10 s passive recovery (3) SIT 10 × 30 s at ~175% of MAS, with 3.5 min active recovery.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Only HIIT 4 × 4 min increased V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub> (7.3 ± 3.1%), different from both SIT groups (all <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). Anaerobic capacity (maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) increased following SIT 8 × 20 s (6.5 ± 10.5%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05), SIT 10 × 30 s (14.4 ± 13.7%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05; different from HIIT 4 × 4 min, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). SIT 10 × 30 s resulted in eight training‐induced injuries, different from no injuries following HIIT 4 × 4 min and SIT 8 × 20 s (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). All groups improved long‐distance (3000‐meter) and sprint (300‐meter) running performance (all <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). SIT protocols improved sprint performance more than HIIT 4 × 4 min (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). Compared to previous male results, no increase in V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub> following SIT 8 × 20 s (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.01), and a higher injury rate for SIT 10 × 30 s (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001), were evident.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>In aerobically well‐trained women, HIIT is superior to SIT in increasing V̇O<jats:sub>2max</jats:sub> while all‐out treadmill running SIT is potentially more harmful.</jats:p></jats:sec>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":2.70805020110221,"endowment":2.70805020110221,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"37608507","pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W4386084057","authors":[],"funders":[{"funder_name":"The Research Counsil of Norway","grant_id":"","title":null},{"funder_name":"The Research Counsil of Norway","grant_id":"","title":null}],"total_grants":2,"fwci":2.9831,"citation_percentile":0.92044033,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[{"year":2024,"count":5},{"year":2025,"count":5},{"year":2026,"count":4}],"oa_status":"hybrid","license":"cc-by","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/sms.14470","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/sms.14470","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/sms.14470","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14470","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37608507","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3123386","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3123103","host_type":"repository"}],"fields_of_study":["Sports Performance and Training","Cardiovascular and exercise physiology","Sports injuries and prevention","Humans","Male","Female","Oxygen Consumption","Adaptation, Physiological","High-Intensity Interval Training","Running","Oxygen"],"mesh_terms":["High-Intensity Interval Training","Adaptation, Physiological","Female","Humans","Male","Oxygen","Oxygen Consumption","Running"],"keywords":["Sprint","Interval training","High-intensity interval training","Anaerobic exercise","VO2 max","Aerobic capacity","Medicine","Animal science","Aerobic exercise","Physical therapy","Cardiology","Internal medicine","Heart rate","Biology","Blood pressure","Aerobic Power","Maximal Oxygen Uptake","Anaerobic Capacity","Hamstring Strain","Sex-differences","Sit","Hiit","Muscular Strain"],"sdg_mappings":[],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-08-16T11:46:11.113387Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}