Extraordinary claims in the literature on high-intensity interval training (HIIT): I. Bonafide scientific revolution or a looming crisis of replication and credibility?

The literature on high-intensity interval training (HIIT) contains claims that, if true, could revolutionize the science and practice of exercise. This critical analysis examines two varieties of claims: (i) HIIT is effective in improving various indices of fitness and health, and (ii) HIIT is as effective as more time-consuming moderate-intensity continuous exercise. Using data from two recent systematic reviews as working examples, we show that studies in both categories exhibit considerable weaknesses when judged through the prism of fundamental statistical principles. Predominantly, small-to-medium effects are investigated in severely underpowered studies, thus greatly increasing the risk of both type I and type II errors of statistical inference. Studies in the first category combine the volatility of estimates associated with small samples with numerous dependent variables analyzed without consideration of the inflation of the type I error rate. Studies in the second category inappropriately use the p > 0.05 criterion from small studies to support claims of 'similar' or 'comparable' effects. It is concluded that the situation in the HIIT literature is reminiscent of the research climate that led to the replication crisis in psychology. As in psychology, this could be an opportunity to reform statistical practices in exercise science