Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37561389›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2023

Extraordinary Claims in the Literature on High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT): I. Bonafide Scientific Revolution or a Looming Crisis of Replication and Credibility?

Panteleimon Ekkekakis, Paul Swinton, Nicholas B Tiller

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Panteleimon EkkekakisDepartment of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, 308 W Circle Dr #134, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. ekkekaki@msu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4260-4702
Paul SwintonSchool of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Nicholas B TillerThe Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The literature on high-intensity interval training (HIIT) contains claims that, if true, could revolutionize the science and practice of exercise. This critical analysis examines two varieties of claims: (i) HIIT is effective in improving various indices of fitness and health, and (ii) HIIT is as effective as more time-consuming moderate-intensity continuous exercise. Using data from two recent systematic reviews as working examples, we show that studies in both categories exhibit considerable weaknesses when judged through the prism of fundamental statistical principles. Predominantly, small-to-medium effects are investigated in severely underpowered studies, thus greatly increasing the risk of both type I and type II errors of statistical inference. Studies in the first category combine the volatility of estimates associated with small samples with numerous dependent variables analyzed without consideration of the inflation of the type I error rate. Studies in the second category inappropriately use the p > 0.05 criterion from small studies to support claims of 'similar' or 'comparable' effects. It is concluded that the situation in the HIIT literature is reminiscent of the research climate that led to the replication crisis in psychology. As in psychology, this could be an opportunity to reform statistical practices in exercise science.

Indexed as

High-Intensity Interval TrainingExerciseHumans

Identifiers

PMID37561389

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.