Effects and Moderators of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) on Physiological Adaptations Among Team-Sport Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026
HIIT added to team-sport training reliably boosts aerobic and anaerobic markers, but body composition barely budges and the dosing data are exploratory.
Part of: Training load and injury risk: what the evidence says · Endurance performance and physiology: training the aerobic engine · Female athlete health: the evidence base
The paper
Systematic review and meta-analysis, 46 studies, n=1204 team-sport athletes (various sports, trained/competitive populations).
What they found
Adding HIIT to regular sport-specific training improved VO2max (g=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.92), maximal aerobic power (g=0.43, CI 0.04-0.82), ventilatory threshold (g=0.70, CI 0.53-0.88), Yo-Yo IR1 performance (g=1.02, CI 0.76-1.28), and Wingate peak (g=0.91, CI 0.67-1.16) and mean power (g=0.70, CI 0.39-1.01). Body composition effects were unclear, and modelled VO2max gains were roughly 2.56 mL/kg/min at ~5 weeks and 5.11 mL/kg/min at ~10 weeks.
Study design
Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO-registered) pooling 46 primary studies and 1204 athletes using mixed-effects models, sitting at the top of the evidence hierarchy for this question, though it is only as strong as the underlying trials, most of which are small training studies in team-sport athletes.
Methodology
Five databases including CNKI were searched (reducing language/publication bias relative to English-only reviews), and effects were pooled with mixed-effects models plus multivariable meta-regression for moderators. The abstract does not mention a formal risk-of-bias/GRADE assessment or heterogeneity (I2) statistics, which matters because training studies in this field are rarely randomised with concealed allocation, can never blind participants or coaches to a HIIT block, and often have small samples and short, variable follow-up. The meta-regression findings (duration, recovery) are explicitly flagged by the authors as study-level associations, which risk ecological fallacy and should not be read as individual dose-response causal effects.
The appraisal
The aerobic and anaerobic effects are both statistically and plausibly clinically meaningful: a 5 mL/kg/min VO2max gain over 10 weeks is a performance-relevant change for a team-sport athlete, and the Yo-Yo and Wingate effects are large by conventional Hedges' g benchmarks. Note the comparator throughout is HIIT added on top of regular sport-specific training versus that training alone, so these are additive-load effects, not a swap, which matters when weighing total training stress on an already-training athlete. The null finding on body composition and the explicit caution around moderator analyses mean this mostly confirms what practitioners already assumed about HIIT rather than establishing new causal programming rules.
The gap
No stated risk-of-bias grading or heterogeneity quantification in the abstract, and the programme-characteristic associations (duration, recovery) are study-level correlations, not tested within-study; a clinician would need the full paper's RoB/GRADE tables and I2 values before trusting the specific dosing numbers.
Landmark context
This extends the long-standing team-sport HIIT literature stemming from work like Helgerud et al.'s aerobic interval training in soccer players and subsequent meta-analyses on HIIT and team-sport fitness (e.g. Rosenblat et al.), quantifying effect sizes and testing duration/recovery as moderators rather than overturning prior consensus.
What to do Monday
Keep HIIT blocks in team-sport conditioning programmes for aerobic and anaerobic gains, but remember the evidence is for HIIT added on top of normal training, not swapped in for it, so track total weekly load, especially in-season, rather than stacking it on uncritically. Don't sell HIIT as a body-composition tool, and treat the specific duration/recovery dosing numbers as hypothesis-generating rather than a new prescription standard.
In practice
This applies to trained or competitive team-sport athletes (soccer, basketball, rugby, hockey and similar) already doing regular sport-specific training, and to late-stage return-to-performance athletes who need an aerobic/anaerobic top-up before full reintegration. On the S&C floor, build HIIT blocks of roughly 5 to 10 weeks with short between-rep recovery to maximise the aerobic effect, but treat it as additive load on top of existing sessions, so track total weekly volume, especially in-season, rather than adding it uncritically, and don't promise body-composition change from HIIT alone, that's a strength and nutrition conversation. In clinic, once an athlete is pain-free and cleared for high intensity, HIIT-style conditioning is a reasonable, evidence-supported bridge back to full training, and the effect looks similar regardless of sex, though the specific duration and recovery numbers are study-level correlations, so individualise and monitor response rather than following them as a fixed prescription.
The five papers that matter — every week, free.
We read the whole sports-medicine, rehab & performance literature and appraise the papers worth your time.
Get the free weekly issue