PMID 39981302

Research
All papers

Effects of 6-week sprint interval training compared to traditional training on the running performance of distance runners: a randomized controlled trail

Jin K, Cai M, Zhang Y, Wu B, Yang Y

Question

Does a 6-week field SIT program improve aerobic capacity and running performance more than traditional long-distance training in well-trained male distance runners?

Summary

In 20 well-trained male distance runners, 6 weeks of twice-weekly field sprint interval training improved time to exhaustion and 100 m, 400 m, and 3000 m times within the SIT group. Compared with traditional endurance training, SIT was clearly better only for 3000 m time; VO2max, oxygen cost, TTE, 100 m, and 400 m between-group differences were not statistically significant.

Methodology

  • Twenty well-trained young male distance runners.
  • 20 participants.
  • Sprint running.
  • Work intervals: 30 s maximal sprint.
  • Recovery: 3.5 min recovery until HR below 70% HRmax.
  • Intensity: Maximal; approximately 175% MAS average interval intensity.
  • 50 min including 3 min cooldown.
  • 2 sessions/week.
  • 6 weeks.
  • Randomized controlled trial
  • VO2max, Oxygen cost, Time to exhaustion, and Running time were tracked.

Outcomes

TTE

The SIT group improved time to exhaustion within group, while the control group did not.

IT 8.30 +/- 0.22 to 8.42 +/- 0.18, p<0.01; between-group post difference p=0.102.

Improved

3000 m

SIT improved 3000 m time and was superior to control after training.

IT 527.48 +/- 4.44 to 522.61 +/- 3.52 s, p<0.01; between-group p<0.01, d=1.53.

Improved

VO2max

VO2max did not significantly improve within the SIT group and did not differ significantly between groups.

IT p=0.055; between-group post p=0.353, d=0.43.

No clear change

Oxygen cost

Oxygen cost trended lower in SIT but was not statistically significant.

IT p=0.077; between-group post p=0.162, d=0.65.

No clear change

Insights

  • For trained runners, field SIT can be programmed without treadmills or cycle ergometers.
  • The clearest comparative benefit was 3000 m performance rather than VO2max.
  • Long recovery intervals may help preserve repeated maximal sprint quality.

Limitations

  • Small sample size.
  • Men only and narrow young adult age range.
  • Short 6-week intervention.
  • Baseline training history and trainability were not deeply characterized.
  • No detailed adverse-event reporting.

Safety

  • Adverse events and injuries were not reported.
  • Potential risks were explained and participants gave written informed consent.