This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anice40 ( article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wigginsa235. Peer reviewers: Tanscan27.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maddysroufe.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
At the start, it says HIIT sessions are usually 15-30 minutes long, but later on it says they should be 15-20 minutes. Is it a matter of preference, efficiency, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.228.173 ( talk) 09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, why 9-20 minutes and not 10-20 minutes? Should this be referenced. MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk)
Because broscience isn't an exact science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.37.129 ( talk) 15:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be duplicating the article on Interval training, and should probably be merged into that page. David Cohen 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The last few comments starting at "Long aerobic workouts have been promoted as the best method to reduce fat, as fatty acid utilization usually occurs after at least 30 minutes...." are dying for a citation. These statements appear to be factual, but should not be regarded if they're only speculation. Under wikipedia ethic, they probably should be removed. Teimu.tm ( talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The example procedure says that it is more efficient if it is done outside rather than on a treadmill but then provides no justification for such a claim.. Anyone care to explain why it is more efficient? Alexgmcm ( talk) 10:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that Sprint 8 is a 30 sec sprint followed by a 90 sec rest. Tabata is 20 sec "sprint" followed by 10 sec rest. Does anyone know what the Trenblay system is? 24.83.148.131 ( talk) 14:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)BeeCier
Is this the citation supporting the insulin action claim -- http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6823/9/3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthvt ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Might be nice to have some comments about relationship to more traditional forms of excercise. I spoke to an instructor who said many commercial gyms look down upon HIIT. I don't know if this is true or not, but if so might be interesting to hear about some criticisms of HIIT (if there are any). This seems like a very "positive" summary of HIIT. Are there downsides? Dangers? Is it "harder" for excercisers, or more unpleasant? Jdmwood ( talk) 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Only benefits are listed; the absence of risks is suspicious. All exercise carries some risk with it. This article does not seem the least bit balanced.
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/conditioning/a/aa112701a.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that most of the HIIT studies are short term, and I believe there are long term studies showing that many of the improvements begin to flatten out (as is the case with most fitness routines). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"Most HIIT sessions have a 2:1 ratio in terms of time. For example, for running, a HIIT session may be something as 60 seconds jog, 30 seconds sprint."
First of all, that second sentence contains questionable English. More importantly, I think it's backwards. As I understand it, it is 2:1::high-intensity:low-intensity. The following sentence, contained later in article, seems to agree.
"A popular regimen based on a 1996 study[2] uses 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at 170% of VO2MAX) followed by 10 seconds of rest..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.23.68 ( talk) 19:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the fast effort is generally longer in duration than the easy recovery jog. I would also query the reference in the article to 'the original protocol'. There is no source mentioning who is considered to be the author of the 'original protocol', so I would replace 'the original protocol' with 'a popular protocol'. Also, this type of training was used by the athletics coach Peter Coe when coaching his son Sebastian Coe in the 1970s: they would frequently do sessions of 200 metre runs with only 30 seconds recovery between each run. AlanD1956 ( talk) 07:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This appears in the statement "...uses 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest." You cannot go anything over 100% of VO2max. Whoever, if anyone, keeps changing this back to 170% is highly misinformed. Even the referenced article says it is 70% of VO2max. This was supposed to be a minor change, but the change has been incorrectly reverted back to this 170% number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversurfer651 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the VO2max statement ("(editors note: by definition, 170% VO2max is impossible. VO2max is the measure of the volume O2 is exchanged by the lungs per unit of time. Normally this is measured in Liters per minute. So in theory, if an athletes VO2max was 1L/min and that was the maximum amount of oxygen the lungs were capable of exchanging, then it could not proccess 1.7L/min, or 170% VO2max)") Three reasons: 1) it's original research: a claim that the published cited work is wrong. 2) the statement itself is incorrect: VO2max is not the maximum exercise intensity, only the maximum aerobic intensity. Beyond that, you're in anerobic metabolism. 3) It makes the paragraph internally contradictory and unreadable. If anyone wants a statement like this back, please include a citation, and rewrite the paragraph so it's coherent and useful to wikipedia readers. Dridgway ( talk) 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It really should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said. If you're going to edit the HIIT section please stay on topic and make sure statements you make are clear.
"1) 3-5 minutes warmup, which consists of light jogging at first and then you gradually increase the intensity towards the end. Eating healthier foods and using this trainig makes losing fat a lot easier""
Eating healthier foods is vague and unnecessary. Unless you go on state what comprises of "healthier," do not state it. The article is about HIIT, not how to lose fat. Silversurfer651 ( talk) 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this sentence, "HIIT is somewhat counterintuitive in this regard, but has nonetheless been shown to burn fat more effectively" necessary, especially the part about it being counterintuitive. It doesn't seem like it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This article states that HIIT is a form of aerobic exercise, but then goes on to give percentages of VO2 Max that clearly fall under anaerobic on the chart on the Aerobic Exercise page. It seems to me that HIIT is a form of anaerobic exercise, but I'm not an exercise scientist, I'm just confused by the two articles. uroscion 13:22, 27 January 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.219.228 ( talk)
I took the liberty of removing the whole "Disadvantages" section since it does not list any sources apart from Tabata's study, and it's interpretation of that study is clearly misguided. The claim that IT group showed almost no improvement over the second 3 weeks is not supported by the article - while the IT group VO2max progress during second 3 weeks was slower than their progress during first 3 weeks, it was still better than the "steady" ET group progress over the second 3 weeks.
Furthermore, either interpretation of this part of Tabata's study certainly constitutes original research and as such should not be on Wikipedia. 12.28.95.2 ( talk) 01:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Benefits section should be organized into
(A) training benefits
E.g., muscle & aerobic benefits
and
(B) metabolic benefits
E.g. improved glucose and insulin metabolism, fat loss, reduced central adiposity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Interval training is more widely known (per Google hits, below) most likely especially to the general public. This High-intensity interval training article and the Interval training article are both short. Both articles would benefit from being combined, and a clear explanation of the differences between the two added.
Failing combining the two, good cross-referencing and a disambiguation page are needed.
Google hits 2012 Jan. 7:
"interval training" 4,040,000 "HIIT" 3,370,000 "HIIE" 2,250,000 "High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise" 179,000 "High-intensity interval training" 741,000 "sprint interval training" 229,000 "Fartlek" (Swedish-origin informal interval training technique) 619,000
In the medical studies field, the acronym HIIE seems the preferred acronym; in PubMed, it is favored over HIIT by a factor approaching 5 to 1:
Google hits 2012 Jan. 7:
"pubmed HIIE" 2,170,000 hits
"pubmed HIIT" 457,000 hits
Posted unsigned by User:Ocdnctx, January 2012.
There has been interval training for a very long time. Some of that would be high intensity (i.e. an extremely high percentage of maximum heart rate) and some would be lower (but still fairly high). The point about HIIT is that it makes certain claims about the effectiveness, specifically, of the very high percentage type of training (that is not thought to be present in the normal type). As such it probably deserves its own article - even if for no other reason than to highlight the lack of agreement between the various protocols adopted and similar lack of large cohort studies.
PRL42 (
talk) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Adding this for future reference because I don't have the time right now to incorporate this new material into the article:
Gebala et al (cited in this article) came out with a new study [1] showing benefits from a less intense version of HIIT. The New York Times reported on it here. 66.159.220.134 ( talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The following quote is subjective and cites a 3rd level source (in Forbes) which sites a 2nd level source. It ought to be either removed or supported by a 2nd level source directly.
Quote: HIIT is considered to be an excellent way to maximize a workout that is limited on time.[5]
Arbalest Mike ( talk) 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The terms "heart rate reserve" and "eucaloric Interval training" are used but not linked to a description. Perhaps earlier occurrences were edited out? Either way I certainly don't have a clue what they mean. This article seems well maintained so it's probably best if I leave it to one of the regulars to fix. HuwG 203.208.123.81 ( talk) 21:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Wmax is also undefined in this article. The reference says it's maximum wattage, but as the article refers to working above Wmax, clearly it's not an actual maximum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.152.83 ( talk) 21:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Isn't "eucaloric" a diet plan that matches food intake to daily exertion? What is "eucaloric interval training" (at the bottom of this topic)?
Under the Peter Coe Regimen section: "Coe set sessions involving repeated fast 200 metre runs with only 30 seconds recovery between each fast runest." I would change it but i'm not sure if he just meant run or what. Bucknastay ( talk) 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
From what I can glean from the abstract of the Venables/Jeukendrup paper, the intervals were hardly high intensity.
In a counterbalanced, crossover design, eight sedentary, obese, but otherwise healthy male participants performed two 4-wk blocks of endurance training, either at a predetermined intensity eliciting maximal fat oxidation (TPCON) or at 5-min intervals of +/- 20% FATmax (TPINT).
So it was 5 METs for fat burning, and the intervals alternated (equal time) between 4 and 6 METs? Something of that order? I'll leave it for another pair of eyes to parse the above and determine whether the entire section is best pared away. — MaxEnt 15:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe the word "regimes" should be "regimens" in the sentence that begins, "However, research has shown that HIIT regimes . . ." in paragraph two of the home page for this article. I'm new to wikipedia editing and do not know how to simply make the correction. Apologies. Sewdebsays ( talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)sewdebsays
The statement "HIIT workouts provide improved athletic capacity and condition …" links to physical exercise which does not define "condition", which sounds a bit like a Germanism ( de.wiktionary/Kondition, meaning 2, i.e. physical fitness, not currently at en.wiktionary/Kondition). If "condition" is meant to add significantly to "athletic capacity", it should be reformulated or linked to a clear definition; in the latter case, "condition" has a specialised meaning in this context, which needs to be added to en.wiktionary/condition. Otherwise "condition" should be removed. PJTraill ( talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence in the Tabata section notes the disqualification of 1996 study participants failing to meet some threshold, but doesn't connect that sentence to what precedes it. I'm assuming it's meant to convey that some have pointed to this as casting doubt on the significance of the findings previously described. It should say what doubts have been expressed in relation to this disqualification. The sentence had previously begun by telling us "it is important to note", but that is WP:EDITORIALIZING, and it wasn't helpful anyway to tell us that it was important to note when it didn't say what we should note specifically, nor why. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anice40 ( article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wigginsa235. Peer reviewers: Tanscan27.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maddysroufe.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
At the start, it says HIIT sessions are usually 15-30 minutes long, but later on it says they should be 15-20 minutes. Is it a matter of preference, efficiency, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.228.173 ( talk) 09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, why 9-20 minutes and not 10-20 minutes? Should this be referenced. MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk)
Because broscience isn't an exact science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.37.129 ( talk) 15:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be duplicating the article on Interval training, and should probably be merged into that page. David Cohen 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The last few comments starting at "Long aerobic workouts have been promoted as the best method to reduce fat, as fatty acid utilization usually occurs after at least 30 minutes...." are dying for a citation. These statements appear to be factual, but should not be regarded if they're only speculation. Under wikipedia ethic, they probably should be removed. Teimu.tm ( talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The example procedure says that it is more efficient if it is done outside rather than on a treadmill but then provides no justification for such a claim.. Anyone care to explain why it is more efficient? Alexgmcm ( talk) 10:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that Sprint 8 is a 30 sec sprint followed by a 90 sec rest. Tabata is 20 sec "sprint" followed by 10 sec rest. Does anyone know what the Trenblay system is? 24.83.148.131 ( talk) 14:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)BeeCier
Is this the citation supporting the insulin action claim -- http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6823/9/3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthvt ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Might be nice to have some comments about relationship to more traditional forms of excercise. I spoke to an instructor who said many commercial gyms look down upon HIIT. I don't know if this is true or not, but if so might be interesting to hear about some criticisms of HIIT (if there are any). This seems like a very "positive" summary of HIIT. Are there downsides? Dangers? Is it "harder" for excercisers, or more unpleasant? Jdmwood ( talk) 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Only benefits are listed; the absence of risks is suspicious. All exercise carries some risk with it. This article does not seem the least bit balanced.
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/conditioning/a/aa112701a.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that most of the HIIT studies are short term, and I believe there are long term studies showing that many of the improvements begin to flatten out (as is the case with most fitness routines). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"Most HIIT sessions have a 2:1 ratio in terms of time. For example, for running, a HIIT session may be something as 60 seconds jog, 30 seconds sprint."
First of all, that second sentence contains questionable English. More importantly, I think it's backwards. As I understand it, it is 2:1::high-intensity:low-intensity. The following sentence, contained later in article, seems to agree.
"A popular regimen based on a 1996 study[2] uses 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at 170% of VO2MAX) followed by 10 seconds of rest..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.23.68 ( talk) 19:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the fast effort is generally longer in duration than the easy recovery jog. I would also query the reference in the article to 'the original protocol'. There is no source mentioning who is considered to be the author of the 'original protocol', so I would replace 'the original protocol' with 'a popular protocol'. Also, this type of training was used by the athletics coach Peter Coe when coaching his son Sebastian Coe in the 1970s: they would frequently do sessions of 200 metre runs with only 30 seconds recovery between each run. AlanD1956 ( talk) 07:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This appears in the statement "...uses 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest." You cannot go anything over 100% of VO2max. Whoever, if anyone, keeps changing this back to 170% is highly misinformed. Even the referenced article says it is 70% of VO2max. This was supposed to be a minor change, but the change has been incorrectly reverted back to this 170% number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversurfer651 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the VO2max statement ("(editors note: by definition, 170% VO2max is impossible. VO2max is the measure of the volume O2 is exchanged by the lungs per unit of time. Normally this is measured in Liters per minute. So in theory, if an athletes VO2max was 1L/min and that was the maximum amount of oxygen the lungs were capable of exchanging, then it could not proccess 1.7L/min, or 170% VO2max)") Three reasons: 1) it's original research: a claim that the published cited work is wrong. 2) the statement itself is incorrect: VO2max is not the maximum exercise intensity, only the maximum aerobic intensity. Beyond that, you're in anerobic metabolism. 3) It makes the paragraph internally contradictory and unreadable. If anyone wants a statement like this back, please include a citation, and rewrite the paragraph so it's coherent and useful to wikipedia readers. Dridgway ( talk) 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It really should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said. If you're going to edit the HIIT section please stay on topic and make sure statements you make are clear.
"1) 3-5 minutes warmup, which consists of light jogging at first and then you gradually increase the intensity towards the end. Eating healthier foods and using this trainig makes losing fat a lot easier""
Eating healthier foods is vague and unnecessary. Unless you go on state what comprises of "healthier," do not state it. The article is about HIIT, not how to lose fat. Silversurfer651 ( talk) 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this sentence, "HIIT is somewhat counterintuitive in this regard, but has nonetheless been shown to burn fat more effectively" necessary, especially the part about it being counterintuitive. It doesn't seem like it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This article states that HIIT is a form of aerobic exercise, but then goes on to give percentages of VO2 Max that clearly fall under anaerobic on the chart on the Aerobic Exercise page. It seems to me that HIIT is a form of anaerobic exercise, but I'm not an exercise scientist, I'm just confused by the two articles. uroscion 13:22, 27 January 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.219.228 ( talk)
I took the liberty of removing the whole "Disadvantages" section since it does not list any sources apart from Tabata's study, and it's interpretation of that study is clearly misguided. The claim that IT group showed almost no improvement over the second 3 weeks is not supported by the article - while the IT group VO2max progress during second 3 weeks was slower than their progress during first 3 weeks, it was still better than the "steady" ET group progress over the second 3 weeks.
Furthermore, either interpretation of this part of Tabata's study certainly constitutes original research and as such should not be on Wikipedia. 12.28.95.2 ( talk) 01:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Benefits section should be organized into
(A) training benefits
E.g., muscle & aerobic benefits
and
(B) metabolic benefits
E.g. improved glucose and insulin metabolism, fat loss, reduced central adiposity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Interval training is more widely known (per Google hits, below) most likely especially to the general public. This High-intensity interval training article and the Interval training article are both short. Both articles would benefit from being combined, and a clear explanation of the differences between the two added.
Failing combining the two, good cross-referencing and a disambiguation page are needed.
Google hits 2012 Jan. 7:
"interval training" 4,040,000 "HIIT" 3,370,000 "HIIE" 2,250,000 "High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise" 179,000 "High-intensity interval training" 741,000 "sprint interval training" 229,000 "Fartlek" (Swedish-origin informal interval training technique) 619,000
In the medical studies field, the acronym HIIE seems the preferred acronym; in PubMed, it is favored over HIIT by a factor approaching 5 to 1:
Google hits 2012 Jan. 7:
"pubmed HIIE" 2,170,000 hits
"pubmed HIIT" 457,000 hits
Posted unsigned by User:Ocdnctx, January 2012.
There has been interval training for a very long time. Some of that would be high intensity (i.e. an extremely high percentage of maximum heart rate) and some would be lower (but still fairly high). The point about HIIT is that it makes certain claims about the effectiveness, specifically, of the very high percentage type of training (that is not thought to be present in the normal type). As such it probably deserves its own article - even if for no other reason than to highlight the lack of agreement between the various protocols adopted and similar lack of large cohort studies.
PRL42 (
talk) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Adding this for future reference because I don't have the time right now to incorporate this new material into the article:
Gebala et al (cited in this article) came out with a new study [1] showing benefits from a less intense version of HIIT. The New York Times reported on it here. 66.159.220.134 ( talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The following quote is subjective and cites a 3rd level source (in Forbes) which sites a 2nd level source. It ought to be either removed or supported by a 2nd level source directly.
Quote: HIIT is considered to be an excellent way to maximize a workout that is limited on time.[5]
Arbalest Mike ( talk) 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The terms "heart rate reserve" and "eucaloric Interval training" are used but not linked to a description. Perhaps earlier occurrences were edited out? Either way I certainly don't have a clue what they mean. This article seems well maintained so it's probably best if I leave it to one of the regulars to fix. HuwG 203.208.123.81 ( talk) 21:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Wmax is also undefined in this article. The reference says it's maximum wattage, but as the article refers to working above Wmax, clearly it's not an actual maximum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.152.83 ( talk) 21:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Isn't "eucaloric" a diet plan that matches food intake to daily exertion? What is "eucaloric interval training" (at the bottom of this topic)?
Under the Peter Coe Regimen section: "Coe set sessions involving repeated fast 200 metre runs with only 30 seconds recovery between each fast runest." I would change it but i'm not sure if he just meant run or what. Bucknastay ( talk) 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
From what I can glean from the abstract of the Venables/Jeukendrup paper, the intervals were hardly high intensity.
In a counterbalanced, crossover design, eight sedentary, obese, but otherwise healthy male participants performed two 4-wk blocks of endurance training, either at a predetermined intensity eliciting maximal fat oxidation (TPCON) or at 5-min intervals of +/- 20% FATmax (TPINT).
So it was 5 METs for fat burning, and the intervals alternated (equal time) between 4 and 6 METs? Something of that order? I'll leave it for another pair of eyes to parse the above and determine whether the entire section is best pared away. — MaxEnt 15:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe the word "regimes" should be "regimens" in the sentence that begins, "However, research has shown that HIIT regimes . . ." in paragraph two of the home page for this article. I'm new to wikipedia editing and do not know how to simply make the correction. Apologies. Sewdebsays ( talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)sewdebsays
The statement "HIIT workouts provide improved athletic capacity and condition …" links to physical exercise which does not define "condition", which sounds a bit like a Germanism ( de.wiktionary/Kondition, meaning 2, i.e. physical fitness, not currently at en.wiktionary/Kondition). If "condition" is meant to add significantly to "athletic capacity", it should be reformulated or linked to a clear definition; in the latter case, "condition" has a specialised meaning in this context, which needs to be added to en.wiktionary/condition. Otherwise "condition" should be removed. PJTraill ( talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence in the Tabata section notes the disqualification of 1996 study participants failing to meet some threshold, but doesn't connect that sentence to what precedes it. I'm assuming it's meant to convey that some have pointed to this as casting doubt on the significance of the findings previously described. It should say what doubts have been expressed in relation to this disqualification. The sentence had previously begun by telling us "it is important to note", but that is WP:EDITORIALIZING, and it wasn't helpful anyway to tell us that it was important to note when it didn't say what we should note specifically, nor why. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)