# The physiological, perceptual and neuromuscular responses of team sport athletes to a running and cycling high intensity interval training session

PMID: 36203053
Journal: European Journal of Applied Physiology
Published: 2022-10-07
Authors: Twist C, Bott R, Highton J

## Question

How do acute physiological, perceptual, and neuromuscular responses differ between volume-matched running and cycling HIIT in team sport athletes?

## Summary

In 11 male university-level team sport athletes, a single volume-matched short-interval HIIT session produced different acute responses depending on modality. Running elicited higher oxygen uptake, heart rate, time above 90% VO2max and HRmax, and breathlessness than cycling. Cycling caused a larger immediate reduction in knee-extensor maximal voluntary contraction, suggesting greater lower-limb neuromuscular load but less run-specific metabolic stimulus.

## Population

- Eleven male university-standard team sport players from sports including soccer, rugby, and basketball.
- Sample size: 11
- Age: 20.0 +/- 0.8 years
- Sex: Men only
- Fitness level: University-standard team sport athletes; running was a large proportion of habitual training
- Health status: Healthy athletes; written informed consent and departmental ethics approval

## Methodology

- Randomized crossover acute exercise study
- Single acute HIIT session per modality with 5-7 days between trials
- Exercise physiology laboratory
- Randomized and controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Running HIIT.
- Modality: Treadmill running.
- Work intervals: 15 sec at 120% speed associated with VO2max.
- Recovery: 15 sec passive recovery by straddling the treadmill; 5 min passive recovery between sets.
- Sets or repetitions: 3 x 6-min repeated-effort sets.
- Intensity: 120% sVO2max, mean speed 15.9 +/- 1.7 km/h.
- Session duration: 18 min interval work/rest plus between-set recovery.
- Program length: Acute single session.
- Progression: No progression.
- Cycling HIIT.
- Modality: Cycle ergometer.
- Work intervals: 15 sec at 120% power associated with VO2max.
- Recovery: 15 sec passive seated recovery; 5 min passive recovery between sets.
- Sets or repetitions: 3 x 6-min repeated-effort sets.
- Intensity: 120% pVO2max, mean power 301 +/- 28 W.
- Session duration: 18 min interval work/rest plus between-set recovery.
- Program length: Acute single session.
- Progression: No progression.

## Outcomes

### Cardiometabolic response
Status: mixed
Running produced higher absolute VO2, HR, ventilation, respiratory frequency, energy expenditure, and time above high-intensity thresholds than cycling.

Mean VO2 36.3 +/- 4.7 vs 30.3 +/- 3.4 ml/kg/min, p<0.001; mean HR 174 +/- 12 vs 159 +/- 7 bpm, p=0.001; time >90% VO2max 288 +/- 132 vs 128 +/- 133 sec, p=0.015; time >90% HRmax 485 +/- 255 vs 59 +/- 110 sec, p<0.001

### Differential RPE
Status: mixed
Breathlessness RPE was higher after running; overall and leg RPE were not statistically different, though leg exertion tended higher for cycling.

dRPE-B 71.8 +/- 19.3 vs 52.3 +/- 19.5, p=0.012; dRPE-O p=0.094; dRPE-L p=0.111

### Neuromuscular fatigue
Status: worse/safety concern
Cycling caused a moderate reduction in MVC while running caused a trivial, non-significant change.

Running MVC 600.9 +/- 105.6 to 597.0 +/- 107.6 N, p=0.726; cycling 588.5 +/- 110.0 to 485.2 +/- 59.9 N, -16.3 +/- 10.1%, p=0.001

## Practical Insights

- For short 15-sec intervals, modality strongly affects the stimulus; cycling may not produce enough time above VO2max thresholds for run-specific adaptation.
- Cycling can still create substantial local leg fatigue, which matters when scheduling lower-body training or sport practice.
- Athlete lab results should be used as programming context, not direct general-population claims.

## Limitations

- Acute study only; no training adaptation outcomes.
- Small sample.
- Male university-standard team sport athletes only.
- Laboratory treadmill running without overground accelerations/decelerations.
- Central vs peripheral fatigue mechanisms were not measured.
- Wide confidence intervals and limitations in sample size estimation.

## Safety And Adherence

- No adverse events were reported. Treadmill trials used a safety harness.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36203053/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-022-05053-8) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813096/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.