Table 3.
Study and subject characteristics for mean power output included in the meta-analysis
| References | Study design | Subjects | Mean age, y | Sample size | Proportion of males | Duration (weeks) | Total sessions | Treatment group | Exercise intensitya | No. of reps | Total reps | Rep duration (s) | Work/rest ratio | Effect on mean power (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start | End | Mean | SE | |||||||||||||
| Siahkouhian et al. [21] | NC | Non-ath | 19.1 | 12 | 1.00 | 8 | 24 | HIT | All-out | 6 | 10 | 191 | 30 | 0.13 | 17.5 | 3.1 |
| Bayati et al. [28] | C | Non-ath | 25.0 | 8 | 1.00 | 4 | 12 | HIT | All-out | 3 | 4 | 48 | 30 | 0.13 | 17.2 | 6.1 |
| Bayati et al. [28] | C | Non-ath | 25.0 | 8 | 1.00 | 4 | 12 | HIT | 125 %Pmax | 6 | 8 | 96 | 30 | 0.25 | 11.2 | 6.7 |
| Bayati et al. [28] | C | Non-ath | 25.0 | 8 | 1.00 | – | – | CON | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.3 | 4.4 |
| Siahkouhian et al. [21] | NC | Ath | 19.4 | 12 | 1.00 | 8 | 24 | HIT | All-out | 6 | 10 | 191 | 30 | 0.13 | 11.1 | 3.1 |
| Stathis et al. [45] | NC | Non-ath | 22.1 | 8 | 0.75 | 7 | 21 | HIT | All-out | 3 | 10 | 153 | 30 | 0.13 | 10.7 | 3.8 |
| Esbjörnsson Liljedahl et al. [55] | NC | Non-ath | 25.0 | 10 | 0.00 | 4 | 12 | HIT | All-out | 3 | 3 | 27 | 30 | 0.03 | 10.1 | 2.9 |
| Burgomaster et al. [41] | NC | Non-ath | 21.0 | 8 | 1.00 | 2 | 6 | HIT | All-out | 4 | 7 | 30 | 30 | 0.13 | 8.7 | 2.9 |
| Barnett et al. [33] | C | Non-ath | 21.2 | 8 | 1.00 | 8 | 24 | HIT | All-out | 3 | 6 | 108 | 30 | 0.17 | 7.1 | 1.6 |
| Barnett et al. [33] | C | Non-ath | 21.2 | 8 | 1.00 | – | – | CON | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2.8 | 1.0 |
| McKenna et al. [24] | NC | Non-ath | 20.9 | 8 | 1.00 | 7 | 21 | HIT | All-out | 4 | 10 | 174 | 30 | 0.14 | 6.1 | 3.8 |
| Allemeier et al. [23] | C | Non-ath | 22.7 | 11 | 1.00 | 6 | 15 | HIT | All-out | 3 | 3 | 45 | 30 | 0.03 | 5.0 | 3.2 |
| Allemeier et al. [23] | C | Non-ath | 24.0 | 6 | 1.00 | 6 | – | CON | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5.0 | 4.4 |
| Forbes et al. [53] | NC | Non-ath | 21.0 | 7 | 0.57 | 2 | 6 | HIT | All-out | 4 | 6 | 30 | 30 | 0.13 | 4.5 | 1.3 |
| Richards et al. [54] | NC | Non-ath | 25.0 | 11 | 0.27 | 2 | 6 | HIT | All-out | 4 | 7 | 30 | 30 | 0.13 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Whyte et al. [29] | NC | Sed | 32.1 | 10 | 1.00 | 2 | 6 | HIT | All-out | 4 | 6 | 26 | 30 | 0.11 | 3.6 | 1.5 |
| Jansson et al. [56] | NC | Non-ath | 27.0 | 7 | 1.00 | 4 | 10 | HIT | All-out | 3 | 3 | 30 | 30 | 0.03 | 2.8 | 4.1 |
| Esbjörnsson Liljedahl et al. [55] | NC | Non-ath | 26.0 | 6 | 1.00 | 4 | 12 | HIT | All-out | 3 | 3 | 27 | 30 | 0.03 | 1.4 | 3.7 |
| Richards et al. [54] | NC | Non-ath | 29.0 | 12 | 0.42 | 2 | 6 | HIT | All-out | 4 | 7 | 30 | 30 | 0.13 | 1.1 | 3.1 |
Studies are sorted from the largest to the smallest effects (intervention group) on mean power output
Ath athlete, C controlled study, CON control group, HIT low-volume high-intensity interval training group, NC non-controlled study, Non-ath non-athlete, Rep repetition, SE standard error, Sed sedentary, %P max percentage of the final completed work rate maintained for 10 s during a pre-training incremental test [28], – indicates not applicable
aAll-out: encompasses intensities described as either “maximal” [24, 53, 55]; “sprints” [33]; “supramaximal” [23]; and “all-out” [21, 28, 29, 41, 45, 54, 56]