Sprint Interval Training Improved Power and Jumping in High-Level Athletes, Review Finds

A newly published systematic review of 27 randomized trials found sprint interval training improved anaerobic power and several jumping outcomes in high-level athletes, while the evidence for short sprint times was more distance-specific and less certain.

Sprint interval training is built around repeated all-out or supramaximal efforts separated by recovery. A meta-analysis published September 8 in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation pooled research from 539 high-level athletes to ask how reliably that approach improves explosive performance.

The strongest evidence was for anaerobic power. Across the included randomized trials, peak power output was higher by an average of about 61 watts and mean power output by about 30 watts in sprint-interval groups compared with non-SIT comparator conditions. The authors rated the certainty for those two outcomes as moderate.

Jumping outcomes also improved, including countermovement jump height by an average of 2.73 centimeters. But the certainty for jumping and sprint performance was rated low, and sprint results were not uniform across distances.

What the Sprint Interval Training Review Included

The researchers searched PubMed, SPORTDiscus, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science through August 16, 2026. Studies had to include athletes classified at high national level or above, use a randomized design, last at least two weeks and report power, sprint or jumping outcomes.

The 27 studies included 453 men and 86 women between ages 15 and 38. Training interventions ranged from three to 10 weeks and one to four sessions per week. Modalities included running sprints, cycling, sport-specific drills and sprint training combined with resistance work.

That breadth makes the review useful, but it also means the pooled result is not a single standardized workout. The comparator groups varied too, ranging from usual training to other high-intensity programs.

Power Was the Most Consistent Finding

Twenty-two studies contributed peak-power data. The pooled mean difference favored sprint interval training by 60.89 W, with a 95% confidence interval from 49.21 to 72.57 W. Between-study heterogeneity was low.

Nineteen studies contributed mean-power data, with an average improvement of 29.69 W and essentially no measured heterogeneity in that pooled analysis. Those outcomes received moderate GRADE certainty, making them more dependable than some of the secondary findings.

This pattern fits the physiological purpose of SIT: repeated maximal efforts place large demands on the phosphagen and glycolytic systems and can improve the ability to produce and sustain high power.

Fitness Living has recently covered an acute question—whether caffeine can change a single 30-meter sprint session—and a molecular question about what repeated sprinting does to circulating proteins. This review addresses the longer-term training question: what repeated sprint programming changes after several weeks.

Sprint Results Were More Nuanced

The review separated sprint performance by distance. Twelve comparisons covering 20 meters showed an average improvement of 0.17 seconds. That is potentially meaningful in high-level sport, where small margins matter.

But only two studies contributed 10-meter data and two contributed 30-meter data. Neither pooled estimate reached statistical significance. The authors therefore rated the overall sprint-performance evidence as low certainty, in part because some distance-specific samples were small.

The same caution applies to jumping. Countermovement jump, vertical jump and standing long jump all improved in the pooled estimates, but evidence was downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.

What About the ‘Best’ Sprint Interval Protocol?

The review explored whether certain programming choices were associated with larger gains. Seven- to nine-week programs, two to three weekly sessions, a 5-second work to 15-second rest structure and higher repetition volumes sometimes showed descriptively larger effect sizes.

Those comparisons are useful for generating hypotheses, but they are not proof of an optimal prescription. Between-subgroup differences did not consistently reach statistical significance, and multiple exploratory comparisons were performed without formal adjustment for multiplicity.

Sport type, athlete level, total workload and exercise modality could also confound those comparisons. A five-second sprint on a field is not physiologically identical to a Wingate-style cycling effort or a sport-specific drill.

Important Limitations

The athlete sample was overwhelmingly male: 453 of 539 participants. That limits confidence in applying the same pooled effects to female athletes, especially when the dose-response questions are already uncertain.

The included studies spanned different sports, athlete tiers, intervention structures and comparator conditions. Randomization methods and allocation concealment were not always well reported, contributing to the GRADE downgrades.

The review also noted that some relevant or unpublished sport-science studies may have been missed. Publication-bias tests did not detect clear asymmetry for outcomes with enough studies, but those tests have limited power and could not be applied to every outcome.

Finally, the review is currently an Article in Press. It is peer-reviewed and citable with a permanent DOI, but copyediting and typesetting may still change presentation before the final Version of Record appears.

What Fitness Enthusiasts Can Take From It

For trained athletes whose sport depends on repeated high-power efforts, sprint interval training has a credible evidence base for improving peak and mean anaerobic power. The pooled jump gains also suggest useful transfer to explosive tasks.

For general fitness enthusiasts, the important point is not that everyone needs all-out sprints. SIT is one tool for developing power and high-intensity capacity, and it carries a higher fatigue and injury cost than easier conditioning.

If sprint work is appropriate, quality matters more than chasing exhaustion. Adequate recovery between efforts, progressive volume and sport-specific technique are more defensible than treating the review’s exploratory subgroup results as a rigid formula.