What? New scientific reveals short sprint work can improve VO2 max

That article is taking a lot of liberties with what the paper published (here):

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Effects of short sprint interval training on aerobic and anaerobic indices: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The effects of short sprint interval training (sSIT) with efforts of ≤10 s on maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O2max), aerobic and anaerobic performances remain unknown. To verify the effectiveness of s...

Link:onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sm...

Short Sprint Interval Training (sSIT) was only shown to be more effective at improving VO2max when it was compared to people that were doing "No sSIT" which included groups that either kept their "usual training" without the addition of short sprints or groups that weren't training at all. 

When they compared the results to Continuous Training (CT) or High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) it's effect was over shadowed by CT and HIIT. 

Additionally, their study selection was very weak. 2 weeks or 6 sessions as their minimum is hardly enough to move the needle on VO2max and can't really be extrapolated to longer training timeframes. Really intense stuff might have just been enough to wake up peoples nervous system allowing them to run a little better or mildly improve economy over the short period. The article is trying to suggest that it's this new secret that people can do to improve VO2max.

This is all coming from someone that has written quite a bit on these boards about the benefits of speed development not dissimilar to what they're describing... but that doesn't mean it's the tool for the job here.

I don't think this study has any information that can or should be used to apply to training. That doesn't inherently make it a bad study, but at best their conclusion should be that more research is needed with longer training durations to determine if there is any efficacy to training

You have to use some logic here. And I'm not saying some speed work is not beneficial in other ways.

But when maximizing the body's use of O2, sprinting is not the method. From what the other poster said the study is weak and compared to couch potatoes.

I'm not going to even bother reading it because I know it is flawed already.

My two guesses about how theyre drawing this conclusion that goes against conventional wisdom

1. Theyre misrepresenting the findings of a study they didnt conduct for clickbait

2. The study which theyre citing included aerobically underdeveloped couch potatoes who were training little or not at all. 

You know you can improve VO2Max with no running or physical activity at all......

Alan

Hill sprints, surges during a moderate run, fartleks with 15-30 second 'on' sections are pretty well known training staples. Of course those are effective. The article just makes the usual 'science' mistake by using lab measured VO2max as a ends-all metric and an ultimate proxy for fitness level and race results. Same incorrect assumption has brought us 'HIIT trumps all other types of training' already.

Weight loss (if we're talking about relative vo2max)

One sprint will not do much (if anything) for aerobic capacity.  But a workout of repeated sprints becomes very aerobic.  It's not the nature of the individual sprint efforts.  It's the cumulative time of the repeated efforts.  It's an interval workout.  Just a very hard one.  Major benefits are going to be LT and vVO2max, but I can see an increase in VO2max because of this.

The key is to make sure the effort of the sprint is high enough.  I don't think just sprint running on flat ground will be able to accomplish this.  Doing repeated Wingate tests on a testing bike would be more appropriate.  You'll be able to achieve an appropriate power output that way.  Maybe running uphill with a sled you can achieve the appropriate power output.

But no one says this is the best way to increase VO2max.  if you don't want to do sprint intervals, then don't do it.

^

Where my thoughts were going. When I measure my heart rate during short sprints even with full recovery I get some pretty high heart rates for long periods of time, often more intense than easy runs, including averaging it out over a ~15 minute period.

^This.

A voice of reason! WTF are you doing classing up this place?

That's a mistake. The study (actually a meta-analysis) looked at (among other things) how effective short sprint workouts are at increasing VO2max. This is nothing new or controversial or "flawed." It has been known for decades that sprint workouts have an effect on VO2 max. Is it the most powerful or effective way to boost VO2max? Of course not, and it's not the reason good athletes include sprint workouts in their training. But they certainly have an effect.

FWIW, here's one of the classic Martin Gibala papers that helped spark the HIIT fad, from back in 2008:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Metabolic adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain? - PubMed

High-intensity interval training (HIT) is a potent time-efficient strategy to induce numerous metabolic adaptations usually associated with traditional endurance training. As little as six sessions of HIT over 2 wk or a total...

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18362686/

"...many studies have shown that a sufficient volume of high-intensity interval training (HIT), performed for at least 6 wk, increases peak oxygen uptake (V˙O2peak) and the maximal activity of mitochondrial enzymes in skeletal muscle."

Gibala's protocols (at the time) generally used repeated Wingate tests, e.g. 4 x 30s with 4:00 rest.

It all depends on the rest interval.

Ask yourself what increases the use of O2? Then you will understand why sprint training does not work to increase this.

I think Rosenblat et al can give some insights into SIT and HIIT in general.  Also Ernest Maglischo wrote some about the effects of SIT.  For VO2 max it might boost the fast twitch VO2 capacity and then the total VO2, but that does not necessarily translate to better distance racing times.  SIT is shown to improve running economy and thus it should be a small but important part of the training.