Why the study?
Many interval training protocols exceed recommended physical activity volumes or induce severe fatigue and discomfort, prompting the need to describe effects of low-volume interval training focusing on short efforts.
What are the acute and chronic physiological and psychological effects of different interval training styles, particularly low-volume sessions?
What are the acute and chronic physiological and psychological effects of different interval training styles, particularly low-volume sessions?
Low-volume interval training (≤15 min/session) offers a time-efficient, better-tolerated alternative to traditional high-volume protocols without compromising physiological adaptations like VO2 max.
Interval training is a regimen that consists of systematic repetitions of high-intensity efforts (above the second ventilatory threshold [VT 2 ]) with recovery periods. Several meta-analyses have summarized the benefits of interval training for human performance and health, with an optimal time-efficient relationship compared with moderate-intensity continuous training. There are 2 effective traditional ways of implementing interval training: (a) high-intensity interval training, which consists of repeating submaximal efforts, and (b) sprint interval training, which consists of repeating supramaximal efforts. A style of interval training that has emerged in recent years is high-intensity functional training, which promotes cardiorespiratory and neuromuscular adaptations. Nevertheless, many protocols prescribe volumes that exceed the recommended minimum of 75 min/wk of physical activity—a level not reached by a large portion of the population. In other cases, regimens have induced severe fatigue and discomfort, making them unfeasible for most adults. Currently, it has been shown that low-volume interval training (≤15 min/session) that includes short efforts does not attenuate physiological adaptations (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption [V̇ o 2 max]) and is better tolerated. This review aimed to describe the acute and chronic physiological/psychological effects of different interval training styles, focusing on short efforts and low-volume sessions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benítez‐Flores et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: