Changes

HIIT can be highly effective training, but involves a risk of injury. HIIT has been shown to improve aerobic capacity in untrained and moderately active individuals more quickly than Continuous Moderate Exercise, as well as having potential benefits for highly trained athletes. HIIT has also been shown to reduce body fat in untrained people more effectively than Continuous Moderate Exercise. However, there is no evidence to suggest that HIIT can replace other forms of training for endurance races. High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) uses repeated short periods of very intense cardiovascular exercise separated by lower intensity recoveries. (I've found the [[Stryd]] estimate of power output is the best approach to gauging effort during HIIT, though [[Moxy]] can provide some interesting insight from [[Muscle Oxygen Saturation]].) If you'd like to know more about the science behind HIIT, see [[The Science of High Intensity Interval Training]].

* For people looking to lose weight, HIIT will probably produce a greater reduction in body fat than Continuous Moderate Exercise. Three sessions per week of [[Cycling HIIT For Runners | Wingate HIIT on a stationary bike ]] should help with [[Weight Loss]] and appetite control. The HIIT could be combined with other forms of exercise on the other days, which may further improve weight loss. (HIIT probably more effective than Continuous Moderate Exercise at improving insulin sensitivity.)* Recreationally active people looking for rounded fitness may benefit from including HIIT in their overall training program. Adding 1-3 sessions per week of [[Cycling HIIT For Runners| Wingate or WinTab HIIT on a stationary bike ]] should provide an improvement in fitness. * Athletes focused on improving their performance in endurance races lasting less than an hour will probably benefit from replacing some of their training load with a combination of both traditional HIIT and shorter Wingate or WinTab style HIIT. Up to one traditional HIIT or 1-3 shorter HIIT sessions could be included in a weekly training routine. Care should be taken to increase [[TRIMP| Training Load]] slowly with the additional HIIT and try to avoid increasing [[Training Monotony]]. The traditional HIIT should be performed by running on a track or other outdoor location. For the shorter HIIT, a stationary bike probably has a lower injury risk, but the additional benefits of outdoor running may outweigh the additional injury risk. However, the fast paces of the shorter HIIT should be introduced gradually, building up the pace over a number of workouts. See [[Cycling HIIT For Runners]] for details. * There is no direct evidence to indicate if HIIT will help athletes focused on improving their performance in events lasting longer than an hour. However, it seems reasonable that HIIT would provide some benefits. Including 1 or 2 Wingate or WinTab HIIT sessions per week may be appropriate. Using HIIT followed immediately by endurance training may mimic some of the effects of longer training. As noted in the prior bullet point for shorter duration athletes, care should be taken to monitor [[TRIMP| Training Load]] and [[Training Monotony]]. As with athletes focusing on events lasting less than an hour, the stationary bike has the lowest injury risk, but there may be benefits to other training modes. However, athletes competing in longer duration events typically don't have the same need for the very high paces that are sometimes seen at the end of shorter events.

The [[Tabata]] workout is one of the best -known protocols for HIIT and consists of 7-8 repeats of 20 seconds at 170% of [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] with 10 seconds rest. The number of repetitions is defined by how long the required intensity can be maintained. An athlete should be able to complete 7-8 intervals; if 9 can be performed, the intensity is increased. However, few people actually follow the [[Tabata]] protocol because it requires specialist equipment to measure [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]], then calculate 1.7x the [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] workload that should be used. In practice, most people do what I call the WinTab workout (see below). ==4 x 4 (The Norwegian Method)==''Main article: [[Medium Intensity High Volume Intervals]]''   The original Norwegian Method is to perform four intervals, each of four minutes at 90-95% of maximum heart rate, with 3-minute recoveries, often called "4x4". At first glance this appears to be an odd specification, as it's impossible to immediately increase your heart rate to 90% of maximum, and the original definition<ref name="Helgerud-2007"/> talks about trying to get your heart rate to 90% or above in 60-90 seconds, then adjust the effort to keep your heart rate in range. This approach was refined by a more detailed study<ref name="Acala Roche-Willis Astorino 2020"/> that used a range of 85-95% of max heart rate. In that study, the subjects increased their effort rapidly to 85-100% of the effort for their [[VO2max|VO₂max]]. After their heart rate reached 95% of max, the effort was reduced to keep it in the 85-95% range. What's that mean in practice? Given the details below, you need to estimate your [[VO2max|VO₂max]], then either work out your pace or power. * '''Power'''. Use the formula "weight in Kg * [[VO2max|VO₂max]] * 0.097". You then start the 4-minute interval at 85-100% of that power. * '''Pace'''. Luckily, it happens that pace in meters/second is roughly the same as power in watts/Kg. So you can use the formula to "[[VO2max|VO₂max]] * 0.097" to estimate your target pace in meters/second, then use an online converter to change that to min/mile or min/Km. Dropping your effort as the interval progresses may result in a surprisingly large reduction, with the study showing that that most intervals ended at about 60% of the initial power. The study also showed that the second through fourth interval had a lower initial power requirement, roughly 10-15% lower than the first interval. Remember, you can estimate your [[VO2max|VO₂max]] from a race performance using a [[Running Calculator]].(Note that the more recent versions of the Norwegian Method use [[Medium Intensity High Volume Intervals]].)===4x4 Conversion Details===The study had athletes with average [[VO2max|VO₂max]] of 37, average weight of 72 Kg, and average peak power output of 260w, which is 3.6 w/Kg. A [[Stryd]] based study<ref name="stryd"/> showed that there's a linear relationship between [[VO2max|VO₂max]] and peak power. (Peak power at [[VO2max|VO₂max]] varies with protocol). For this study, the peak power in w/Kg is [[VO2max|VO₂max]] * 0.097. ===4x4 Effort Worked Example===Assume your [[VO2max|VO₂max]] is 53 and your weight is 60, then the initial target power is 53 * 0.097 * 60 = 309 watts. So the target range would be 260-309w at the start of the interval. Alternatively, the required pace is 0.097 * 60 = 5.14 meters/second, so the range is 4.37 to 5.14 m/s. That converts to 3:49-3:14 min/Km or 6:08-5:13 min/mile. The power or pace is then dropped to keep your heart rate below 95% max.

This style of HIIT is based around the Wingate test, which is used to measure peak anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity<ref name="Vandewalle-1987"/>. ===The Wingate Test===The Wingate Test typically uses a warmup of 10 minutes easy cycling, followed by 2-3x 15 second sprints to get used to the speed. Then the test is normally 30 seconds all out sprinting, though some researchers use a longer period of 40-120 seconds. ===The Test on a Smart Trainer===The test is performed on a mechanically braked cycle ergometer, often a Monarch model. This makes converting the settings to a smart trainer tricky. The Monarch uses a weight to provide the resistance, and the Wingate Test uses 7.5% of your body weight. The formula for working out Watts for the Monarch is the resistance in Kg multiplied by the cadence. So, if you weigh 60 Kg, 7.5% is 4.5Kg, and at a cadence of 80 rpm is 360 watts. Setting your smart trainer's resistance so you get about 360 watts at 80 rpm is a good starting point for the test. ===The Wingate as HIIT===The Wingate HIIT uses 30 seconds of 'all out' intensity, followed by ~4 minutes of recovery, repeated 4-6 times. A similar warmup procedure as the test seems reasonable, with 10 minutes easy, then 2-3x 15 second sprints.

High intensity Interval Training has been in use since before the [[Tabata]] study made the term popular. The Jack Daniel's 'R' paced workouts are a classic example of this tradition of anaerobic interval training. The Jack Daniel's 'R' intervals are performed at around mile/1500m pace<ref name="JD"/>, which is generally close to 100% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]. The 'R' workouts are 12-40 repeats of 30-60 seconds with 1-4 min rests<ref name="JD-P132"/>. Jack Daniels mentions once having his athletes perform over 1,000 repetitions of one -minute HIIT (4 -minute rest) in a 14 -day period, with two male athletes averaging 5:00 min/mile pace and therefore covering 250 miles<ref name="JD-P132"/>.

There are various ways that HIIT could be performed, each with their own pros and cons. As this site is dedicated to running, my assumption is that you're a runner primarily. If that's not the case, then you'll have to interpret the pros and cons slightly differently.

| [[Cycling HIIT For Runners | Stationary BikeHIIT]]

* A stationary bike is much safer than writing outdoors at extreme intensities.* The vast majority of many studies have used a stationary bike to perform HIIT.* Riding out of the saddle is closer to moderate running in terms of muscle usage than riding seated.

| Outdoor Bike

| Runningon the flat

* For runners, roughly the right muscle groups are trained.* With [[Stryd]] it's possible to get a good measurement of pace, and even an estimate of power output. (The estimate of running power is not equivalent to cycling power, which can actually be measured rather than estimated.)

* At high Intensity, the movements involved in running become dramatically different, requiring a greater range of motion. This difference creates a significant risk of injury. Running uphill reduces some of this stress (hill based HIIT is not uncommon<ref name="active.com-hills"/>)It also changes the muscles used compared with running at submaximal intensity.

|-| Running up hill| * Even with Running uphill generates a [[Footpod]] and much higher intensity at a [[Best slower pace. This means that the biomechanical changes are not so extreme, reducing the risk of injury.| * Running Watch| good uphill uses somewhat different muscles to running watch]] iton the flat, so the training stress is not identical.* It's hard to measure pace accuratelyfind a hill that's long enough to do a high intensity interval training session that includes only partial recovery.* Getting the right incline is a tricky balance. Too shallow, and GPS is useless for you may as well be running on the short intervals often used in HIITflat. Too steep and your biomechanics become exaggeratedly different. |-| Running on with extra drag| * It's possible to use a track [[Running Parachute]], or other known distance may be slightly easierdrag a tire behind you to increase intensity at a slower pace.* The slower pace means a less extreme stride length and biomechanical changes, but it's still not trivialreducing risk of injury from those changes.| * The additional track creates radically different muscle recruitment patterns. (This is not * For a problem for 'all out' style full list of HIITdownsides see [[Running Parachute]]s.)

This section looks at the scientific evidence, divided into three sections. Studies that compare HIIT with other modes For details of training are the most interesting, though they don't cover highly trained athletes. I've included a few other studies that are not comparative because they have some particularly dramatic results. The third section looks at the studies that have looked at HIIT for highly trained athletes. ==science around HIIT Comparisons on Untrained or Moderately Active Subjects==The table below looks at studies that have compared HIIT with other types of training, often Continuous Moderate Exercise (CME). These studies on untrained or moderately trained subjects generally show a greater improvement in fitness measure compared with other forms of training, or similar improvements for far less training time. {| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border: none;"! Study! Subjects! Study length! Protocol! Outcome! Best Result! Notes|-| rowspan="4" rowspan="4"| Helgerud-2007<ref name="Helgerud-2007"/>| rowspan="4" rowspan="4"| Moderately trained(see [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] 51-55)| rowspan="4" rowspan="4"| 3 days/week8 weeks| '''Short HIIT'''47x 15 seconds at 90-95% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] + 15 seconds at 70% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] | Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] 7.2%| rowspan="4" rowspan="4"| Short HIIT| rowspan="4" rowspan="4"| All groups improved economy, with no differences, and [[Lactate Threshold]] unchanged as a percentage The Science of [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]|-| '''Long HIIT'''4x 4 min, 90-95% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] + 3 min at 70%max| Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] 5.5%|-| '''[[Lactate Threshold]] run'''24 min at 85% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] | [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] unchanged|-| '''Long Slow Distance'''45 minutes at 70% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]]| [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] unchanged|-| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| TjonnaLee-2008<ref name="TjonnaLee2008"/>| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Untrained, metabolic syndrome patients| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 3 days/week16 weeks| '''HIIT'''4x 4 min at 90% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] + 3 min 70% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]]total 40 min, | Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] 36%| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Same calories burned in each groupBoth groups had an equal reduction in body weight and blood pressure|-| '''Continuous Moderate Exercise'''47 min at 70% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] | Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] 16%|-| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Gibala-2006<ref name="Gibala-2006"/> | rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Recreationally active| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 2 weeks| '''HIIT'''4-6x 30 seconds 'all out' + 4 min recoveryTotals for two weeks, 135 minutes and 950 Kj| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Same improvement in laboratory time trials| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Same improvement, but only 22% of the time commitment|-| '''Continuous Moderate Exercise'''90-120 min at 65% [[VO2max|V̇O₂peak]]Totals for two weeks, 630 minutes and 6500 Kj|-| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Gorostiaga-1991<ref name="Gorostiaga-1991"/> | rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Sedentary| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 3 days/week8 weeks| '''HIIT'''30x 30 sec @ 100% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] + 30 sec rest| Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] 9-16%No change in blood [[Lactate]] during continuous exercise | rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Same average work in each group|-| '''Continuous Moderate Exercise'''30 minutes at 50% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]| Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] 5-7%Reduced blood [[Lactate]] during continuous exercise by nearly 50%|-| rowspan="3" rowspan="3"| Franch-1998<ref name="Franch-1998"/>| rowspan="3" rowspan="3"| 36 recreational runners| rowspan="3" rowspan="3"| 3 days/week at high intensityPlus 3 runs/week <= 65% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]]6 weeks| '''Short HIIT'''30-40x 15 sec run, 15 sec restAvg ~3.0 Km/workout92% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]]| Time to exhaustion increased 65%[[Running Economy]] improved 0.9%| rowspan="3" rowspan="3"| Continuous High Intensity| rowspan="3" rowspan="3"| Better improvements from continuous training than HIIT, but the continuous training is at an unusually high intensity that is probably close to a 10K race, three times a week. |-| '''Long HIIT'''4-6x 4 min run, 2 min restAvg ~5.6 Km/workout94% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]]| Time to exhaustion increased 67%[[Running Economy]] improved 3.0%|-| '''Continuous High Intensity'''20-30 minutesAvg ~6.4 Km/workout93% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]]| Time to exhaustion increased 94%[[Running Economy]] improved 3.1%|-| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| BurgomasterHowarth-2007<ref name="BurgomasterHowarth2007"/>| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 20 Untrained| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT 3x weekContinuous 5x week6 weeks| '''HIIT'''4-6x 30 seconds 'all out', 4.5 min rest1.5 hours/week~225 Kj/week| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Both increased [[VO2max|V̇O₂peak]] by ~5%| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Similar changes in HIIT for 10% of the workload and 30% of the time of continuous training.|-| '''Continuous Moderate Exercise'''40-60 min at 65% [[VO2max|V̇O₂peak]]4.5 hours/week2250 Kj/week|-| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Trapp-2008<ref name="Trapp-2008"/>| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 34 sedentary women| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 45 workouts over 15 weeks| '''HIIT'''60x 8 seconds 'all out', 12 seconds rest (5 min [[Warmup]], 20 min conditioning, 5 min [[Cooldown]])| Increased [[VO2max|V̇O₂peak]] 24%5 pound/2.5 Kg reduction in body fatSignificant 31% reduction in fasting insulinSignificant reduction in Leptin| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT produced similar improvements in fitness for a lower time commitment, as well as a reduction in body fat that was not seen with continuous exercise. |-| '''Continuous Moderate Exercise'''40 minutes at 60% [[VO2max|V̇O₂peak]]| Increased [[VO2max|V̇O₂peak]] 19%1 pound/0.5 Kg gain in body fatNon-significant 9% reduction in fasting insulinNo change in Leptin|-| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Tabata-1996<ref name="Tabata-1996"/>| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 14 varsity level collage athletes ([[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] ~50)| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 5 days/week6 weeks | '''HIIT'''4 days/week 7-8x (30 seconds at 170% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] + 10 seconds rest)1 day/week 30 min at 70% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] + 4x (30 seconds at 170% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] + 10 seconds rest)| Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] by 14.5%Increased anaerobic capacity by 28%| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| HIIT produced a greater improvement in [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] for far less time commitment|-| '''Continuous Moderate Exercise'''60 minutes at 70% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]| Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] by 9.5%No change in anaerobic capacity |-| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| EarnestTjønna-2013<ref name="EarnestTjønna2013"/>| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 26 healthy overweight men (BMI 25-30)| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| 3 days/week10 weeks| '''4x HIIT'''10 min [[Warmup]]4x 4 min at 90% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] + 3 min 70% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]]5 min [[Cooldown]]total 40 min| Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] by 13%Work economy improved by 13%Systolic blood pressure decreased 3.2 mmHg Diastolic blood pressure decreased 6.3 mmHg  | rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| Similar results with both protocols| rowspan="2" rowspan="2"| This study showed remarkable results using a single high intensity bout of exercise. |-| '''1x HIIT'''10 min [[Warmup]]4 min at 90% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]]5 min [[Cooldown]]total 19 min| Raised [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] by 10%Work economy improved by 14%Systolic blood pressure decreased 6.2 mmHg Diastolic blood pressure decreased 7.7 mmHg  |}==HIIT Studies on Untrained or Moderately Active Subjects without Controls==While studies that compare HIIT with other forms of training are the most useful, there are a few other studies on untrained or moderately active people that are noteworthy. For instance, six sessions of HIIT over two weeks doubled the endurance of untrained subjects at 80% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] from 25 to 51 minutes, despite no change in [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]<ref name="Burgomaster-2005"/>, a remarkable improvement. In another study, the combination of Continuous Moderate Exercise and moderate intensity intervals (60-70% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]) reduced body fat by 15%, which was nine times more than Continuous Moderate Exercise alone, even though the Continuous Moderate Exercise burned over twice the calories<ref name="Tremblay-1994"/>. Another study also used a combination of HIIT on 3 day/week plus running as far as possible in 40 min on another 3 days/week , resulting in an increase in [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] by 44%, as well as improved running endurance, with some subjects ending up with a [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] exceeding 60 ml/kg per min, which is remarkably high for 10 weeks of training<ref name="Hickson-1977"/>. ==HIIT and Highly Trained Athletes==It has been suggested that elite athletes do not benefit from further increases in volume, and should instead look to HIIT for performance improvements<ref name="Laursen-1-2002"/>. This is backed up by studies of some of the great endurance athletes, where higher training mileage produced worse rather than better performance<ref name="elitemileage"/>. In the Lore of Running, Tim Noakes said that elite runners perform best "when they train between 75-125 miles (120-200 km) per week, with an increasing likelihood that they will perform indifferently when they train more than 125 miles (200 km) per week"<ref name="LoR-P477"/>. Of course this is not universally true, and Mike Morton, set the US record holder for 24 hour while training 140-150 miles/week<ref name="militarytimes.com"/>. However, the evaluation of HIIT on elite athletes is not as easy as lessor folk. It's not practical to compare the effect of HIIT with other forms of exercise in highly trained athletes as they are typically already performing large volumes of Continuous Moderate Exercise. Instead, studies of highly trained athletes look at how HIIT impacts their fitness compared with a baseline taken beforehand. * HIIT improved peak power output and 40 Km time trial in elite cyclists<ref name="Lindsay-1996"/><ref name="Westgarth-Taylor-1997"/>* A study of elite cyclists used various HIIT workouts as shown in the table below, with the best results seen group 4 or group 1<ref name="Stepto-1999"/>. Group 4 trained at 85% peak power, which corresponds to the intensity normally seen in the 40K time trial, which takes ~60 minutes for an elite cyclist. Not surprisingly, this intensity is commonly used for cyclists training for 40K time trials. However, the higher intensity of group 1 is more intriguing; the time trial performance improved without an improvement in peak power, suggesting that a different mechanism may be responsible. This raises the possibility that the benefits of the different intensities might be combined. Note that there were only four athletes in each group, and responses tended to vary, so caution should be used in interpreting the results. {| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border: none;"! Group! Number of intervals! Interval duration (min)! Total work time (min)! Intensity (% peak power)! Rest (min)! Total Time! Improvement in 40K Time Trial Speed! Improvement in Peak Power|-| 1| 12| 0.5| 6| 175%| 4.5| 60 min| 2.0%| 0.5%|-| 2| 12| 1| 12| 100%| 4.0| 60 min| 0.0%| 0.5%|-| 3| 12| 2| 24| 90%| 3.0| 60 min| 1.5%| 1.5%|-| 4| 8| 4| 32| 85%| 1.5| 44 min| 2.5%| 2.0%|-| 5| 4| 8| 32| 80%| 1.0| 36 min| 0.0%| 1.0%|}* One approach to optimizing the length of the intervals in highly trained athletes is to use a percentage of [[vVO2max|T_lim]] , where [[vVO2max|T_limTraining]] is the time to exhaustion at 100% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]<ref name="Laursen-1-2002"/>.* 5 state level middle distance runners that underwent 4 weeks of HIIT training reduced their 3K time by 2.8% (10:16 to 9:59) and [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] by 4.9% (61 to 64)<ref name="Smith-1999"/>. The HIIT training consisted of 2 sessions per week of 6 intervals at 100% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] with time varying between 60-75% [[vVO2max|T_lim]], plus one weekly run of 30 min at 60% v[[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]. For these runners, [[vVO2max|T_lim]] averaged 225 seconds, so the intervals were between 135 and 170 seconds.* Well trained, competitive runners trained twice a week for four weeks with intervals at 100% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] for either 6x 60% [[vVO2max|T_lim]] (133 sec) or 5x 70% (154 sec) [[vVO2max|T_lim]], resting for twice the interval time. Their 3K time improved by 17.6 sec (60% [[vVO2max|T_lim]]) or 6.3 sec (70% [[vVO2max|T_lim]]), but there was no change in their 5K time<ref name="Smith-2003"/>.* 41 elite ([[VO2max|V̇O₂peak]] ~65) cyclists and triathletes were split into four groups, with three groups using the HIIT described below and the fourth acting as a control that followed only low to moderate intensity training<ref name="Laursen-3-2002"/>. Note that groups 1 and 2 vary only in their rest time, which is based on [[Heart Rate]] dropping to 65% of [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] in group 2 (averaging around 180 seconds). This was a demanding regime, as the subjects reached exhaustion on nearly every HIIT training session, with '''only 64% of the dictated intervals actually completed'''. Note that like comparison of different workouts above, the shorter HIIT produced a similar improvement in 40K performance without the accompanying rise in [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] which was not statistically different between group 3 and the controls. {| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border: none;"! Group! Intended number of intervals! Interval Duration! Total work time (min)! Intensity (% [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]])! Rest ! Total time! [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] change! 40K Time Trial Speed improvement|-| 1| 8| 60% [[vVO2max|T_lim]](~150 sec)| 20| 100%| 120% [[vVO2max|T_lim]] (~290 sec)| 58 min| 5.2%| 5.2%|-| 2| 8| 60% [[vVO2max|T_lim]](~150 sec)| 20| 100%| 65% [[Maximum Heart Rate|HR_max]] (~180 sec)| Varies| 8.0%| 5.6%|-| 3| 12| 30 seconds| 6| 175%| 4.5 min| 60 min| 3.1%| 4.3%|-| Control| N/A| N/A| N/A| N/A| N/A| N/A| 0.8%| -1%|}* Elite cyclists performed 4 sessions of HIIT (20x 60 sec at [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] + 120 sec recovery) that improved peak power by 4% but had no change in [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]<ref name="Laursen-2-2002"/>.==Limitations of the HIIT science==There are some important limitations of the HIIT science. * The majority of studies are on sedentary or recreationally active people, not trained runners. * Few studies use real world measures of improvement, relying instead on indirect metrics such as [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]]. While [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] is linked to improved performance, there are other important factors involved. * Studies that do look at the effect of HIIT on real world performance tend to focus on shorter events, such as 3K or 5K running, or 40K cycling.* Most studies are short duration, looking at the effects of HIIT over just a few weeks.

Crossfit Endurance is a training approach that reduces the normal endurance training volumes while increasing the training intensity<ref name="www.crossfitendurance.com-about"/>. The reduction in volume is quite dramatic compared with other training plans; for instance, the Crossfit Endurance marathon training plan has a 10 mile time trial as its longest run, which is combined with weight training and interval training<ref name="crossfitmarathon"/>. Crossfit Endurance claims that eight 100 meter intervals "accomplishes everything you would by jogging 20 miles but doesn't put the same level of stress and damage on the body." There is the caveat that "some kind of stamina work that lost more than the 70 seconds is required to "dial in technique, just rhythm, and formulate pace strategy." While there are some testimonials to the Crossfit Endurance methodology<ref name="www.crossfitendurance.com-test"/>, their approach is controversial<ref name="SoRCf"/>. The science that is used to support Crossfit Endurance does not support replacing traditional Continuous Moderate Exercise with HIIT for endurance events, only using HIIT as a supplementary form of training<ref name="metamorphitness.wordpress.com"/>. Most of the anecdotal reports suggest that people have set personal records at 5K and 10K distances and completed half marathons using the Crossfit Endurance approach, but there are few reports of longer races. The anecdotal reports are hard to interpret objectively without knowing the individuals prior training methodology. (I have some other concerns with CrossFit, such as their emphasis on forefoot landing, then approach to hydration that includes the overly simplistic "sweat rate test", but that's outside of the scope of this article that focuses on interval training.)

<ref name="LaursenHelgerud-3-20022007"> PBJ. LaursenHelgerud, CMK. ShingHøydal, JME. PeakeWang, JST. CoombesKarlsen, DGP. JenkinsBerg, Interval M. Bjerkaas, T. Simonsen, C. Helgesen, N. Hjorth, Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training program optimization in highly trained endurance cyclists., Med Sci Sports Exerc, volume 3439 !!V̇olume!!, issue 114, pages 1801665-771, Nov 2002Apr 2007, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/01.MSSmss.0000036691.95035.7D 0b013e3180304570 10.1249/01.MSS.0000036691.95035mss.7D0b013e3180304570], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12439086 1243908617414804 17414804]</ref><ref name="active.comAcala Roche-hillsWillis Astorino 2020"> How Justin J. Acala, Devyn Roche-Willis, Todd A. Astorino, Characterizing the Heart Rate Response to Complete Highthe 4 × 4 Interval Exercise Protocol, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, publisher MDPI AG, volume 17, issue 14, date 2020-07-Intensity Interval Hill Workouts15, ISSN [http://www.activeworldcat.comorg/running/Articlesissn/How-to1660-Complete4601 1660-High-Intensity-Interval-Hill-Workouts4601], Accessed on 24 February 2013<doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ref><ref name="elitemileage"> An Interesting Analysis of Some Elites&#8217; Training History, Accessed on 26 February 2013<ijerph17145103 10.3390/ref><ref name="LoR-P477">Timothy Noakes, Lore of runnin, date 2003, publisher Human Kinetics, location Champaign, IL, isbn 0-87322-959-2ijerph17145103], pages 447*448page 5103</ref><ref name="militarytimes.comstryd"> httphttps://militarytimesblog.stryd.com/blogs/pt3652019/201212/0506/07/armyhow-masterto-sgtuse-mikestryd-morton-and-his-14-year-journeypower-to-the-badwatercalculate-135your-ultramarathonvo2/, http://militarytimes.com/blogs/pt365/2012/05/07/army-master-sgt-mike-morton-and-his-14-year-journey-How to use Stryd power to-the-badwater-135-ultramarathon/calculate your VO2, Accessed on 26 February 2013</ref><ref name="EarnestTjønna2013">Conrad P. Earnest, Arnt Erik Tjønna, Ingeborg Megaard Leinan, Anette Thoresen Bartnes, Bjørn M. Jenssen, Martin J. Gibala, Richard A. Winett, Ulrik Wisløff, Low- and High-Volume of Intensive Endurance Training Significantly Improves Maximal Oxygen Uptake after 10-Weeks of Training in Healthy Men, PLoS ONE, volume 8, issue 5, 2013, pages e65382, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/19322023-6203 193208-6203], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065382 10.1371/journal.pone.0065382]21</ref>