Improvements in Attention and Cardiac Autonomic Modulation After a 2-Weeks Sprint Interval Training Program: A Fidelity Approach
Question
Does a 2-week sprint interval training program improve attention and cardiac autonomic modulation, and do responses differ by protocol fidelity?
Summary
In healthy university students, a 2-week cycle sprint-interval program improved estimated VO2max, skinfold sum, and some attention/autonomic measures. Participants who reached the target heart-rate fidelity more often showed clearer accuracy and heart-rate-variability changes.
Methodology
- Healthy young university students allocated to sprint interval training or control
- 91 participants.
- Cycle ergometer.
- Work intervals: 30 s all-out sprint.
- Recovery: 3-4 min active no-load recovery at 60 rpm.
- Intensity: All-out at 7.5% body mass; fidelity criterion >90% estimated HRmax.
- 12-24 min.
- 3 sessions/week.
- 2 weeks.
- Randomized controlled intervention with post hoc fidelity grouping
- Attention, Cardiac autonomic modulation, Aerobic fitness, and Body composition were tracked.
Outcomes
VO2max
Both high- and low-fidelity sprint groups improved estimated VO2max versus baseline.
HIGH 36.9 +/- 8.6 to 41.5 +/- 6.4; LOW 38.7 +/- 9.1 to 43.5 +/- 9.7; p < 0.05 time effects
Skinfolds
Sprint groups, but not control, reduced skinfold sum.
HIGH and LOW improved skinfold sum and mean warm-up HR; control did not
Attention
Conflict effect improved in both sprint groups; accuracy improved only in the high-fidelity group.
Conflict HIGH 152.5 +/- 63.3 to 121.7 +/- 44.7; LOW 131.2 +/- 48.9 to 106.97 +/- 36.79; accuracy HIGH 96.2 +/- 6.5 to 98.5 +/- 2.6
HRV
Autonomic measures changed, with clearer resting complexity and vagal-modulation changes in the high-fidelity group.
Significant HR/HRV time effects; HIGH showed significant HR and HRV complexity changes at rest
Insights
- Very short all-out cycling sprint programs can move fitness and some cognitive/autonomic markers quickly.
- Protocol fidelity matters: achieving target intensity may change which outcomes improve.
- A low-volume sprint plan still had time and intensity demands that caused some withdrawals for lack of time.
Limitations
- Aerobic fitness was estimated indirectly
- Incidental physical activity and diet were not controlled
- Training/sport background was not fully described
- Estimated HRmax was used for fidelity classification
- Short intervention
Safety
- The article did not clearly report adverse-event incidence.
- Seventeen intervention participants and one control withdrew because of lack of time.