Abstract
This letter critiques the data analysis of a study investigating peak oxygen uptake responses to cycling and running sprint interval training (Digby et al., 2023 J Strength Cond Res, 37(4), e313-e316). While the study effectively demonstrates the specificity principle in the context of sprint interval training, concerns arise regarding the methodology used to categorise participants as responders or non-responders. The letter highlights the disregard for the recommendations of a number of academics advocating for specific experimental designs and statistical analyses to examine inter-individual variability. Furthermore, the reliability of within-individual adaptive responses to training and the potential impact of measurement errors and biological fluctuations are considered. It is suggested that the (non-)responder categorisation adds nothing to the main findings of the study and should be avoided. The importance of using appropriate experimental designs and statistical analyses when investigating inter-individual variability is emphasised. An open-source beta-version simulator is introduced as an educational resource to demonstrate the limitations inherent in the responder counting approach.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
