ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
A study on the effects of modified sprint interval trainingon physical fitness test scores and the quantitative and dose-response relationships among Chinese male university students.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating physical fitness and psychology: an in-depth discussion of exercise interventions for weight reduction among university students.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Changes in resilience and masculine gender role stress following 8 weeks of maximal power cycling training in male university students: a single-group pre-post study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Physical Activity Assessment-Self-Reported Versus Pedometer-Measured, and Associations with Health Markers Among University Students in South Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Construction of an evaluation index system for core literacy in physical education and health for Chinese college students.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study primarily investigates the impact of a 6-week Sprint Interval Training (SIT) intervention on the physical fitness test results of male university students, as well as the dose-response relationship in adjusting the experimental protocol. Methods: A total of 26 male university students (aged 20 ± 2 years; height 174 ± 7 cm; weight 70 ± 14 kg; mean ± SD) with no systematic training in the past 3 months, no physiological diseases, and healthy physical condition voluntarily participated in the experiment. The SIT protocol was designed based on a classic Wingate sprint protocol (4-6 x 30 s sprints with 4 m of recovery), and adjustments were made based on the participants' actual adaptation. The final intervention consisted of 6 weeks of training, three times per week, with 2-3 repetitions of 30-s Wingate sprints (Cd = 0.075, resistance on the ergometer = weight/kg x Cd) and 4-5 m of recovery. Results: The results showed significant improvements in key anaerobic capacity indicators after the 6-week intervention: Average Power (AP) increased from 77.4 ± 10.1 to 132.6 ± 21.1 (p < 0.01, Adjusted p < 0.03 ment, with a maximum effect size of 3.344), Peak Power (PP) increased from 102.9 ± 14.5 to 189.5 ± 28.8 (p < 0.01, Adjusted p < 0.02, maximum effect 3.790), and Time to Peak Power (TTP) decreased from 12.3 ± 3.3 to 9.5 ± 2.6 (p < 0.01), confirming that the intervention enhanced the participants' anaerobic capacity. Additionally, The results of the physical fitness test showed significant improvements: standing long jump (SLJ) increased from 2.31 ± 0.15 m to 2.45 ± 0.18 m (significance level p < 0.01), 50 m sprint time decreased from 7.32 ± 0.42 s to 6.98 ± 0.38 s (significance level p < 0.01), and 1,000 m from 235.6 ± 18.4 s to 220.3 ± 16.8 s (significance level p < 0.01). Other metrics such as Body mass, BMI, Vital capacity, and Pull-ups also showed minor increases. Interestingly, Sit forward in a sitting position scores showed a noticeable improvement (from 12.9 ± 6.8 to 15.8 ± 6.2, p = 0.091). Discussion: Furthermore, The adjustment of the training programme has achieved good results, as evidenced by the fact that participants have achieved a training completion rate of over 95%, maintained a moderate subjective fatigue rating (RPE score of 13-15), and no one has withdrawn from the training due to discomfort. Conclusion: The modified SIT protocol proves to be an efficient and practical training method for improving college students' physical fitness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.