REF-035 · Laursen, 2010 · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, Vol. · Paper

Training for intense exercise performance: high-intensity or high-volume training?

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on highly trained to elite athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Central Question

For intense exercise events (Olympic rowing, swimming, kayak, track running, track cycling) that draw on aerobic and anaerobic energy: what is the role of high-intensity interval training versus high-volume training? Laursen reviews the literature.

Key Findings

1

Aerobic energy supply dominates total energy requirements after ~75 s of near-maximal effort and has the greatest potential for improvement with training, so most training for these events targets aerobic capacity

2

A short-term period of high-intensity interval training — six to eight sessions over 2-4 weeks, repeated bouts close to or well above VO2max intensity with low-intensity exercise or rest between — can raise intense-exercise performance by 2-4% in well-trained athletes

3

High-volume training is less discussed but also induces important metabolic adaptations; the adaptations from the two overlap considerably, while the molecular signalling events may differ

4

A polarised approach — ~75% of total training volume at low intensity and 10-15% at very high intensity — has been suggested as the optimal TID for elite athletes in intense events

5

The abstract gives no figure for the gain from volume alone, no upper limit on intense work, no plateau timing and no threshold-zone share

Practical Application

Laursen's review: in well-trained athletes, a short block of six to eight high-intensity interval sessions over 2-4 weeks (bouts at or above VO2max intensity) can lift intense-exercise performance by 2-4%; high-volume training builds much of the same metabolic adaptation by a partly different signalling route, and the suggested distribution for elite athletes in intense events is about 75% of volume at low intensity with 10-15% at very high intensity.A 2-4 week HIT block is a documented, bounded tool — not a season-long mode.
Aerobic supply dominates after about 75 s of near-maximal effort, which is why even "intense" events (track cycling, rowing, middle-distance running) are trained mostly aerobically.
The review does not quantify what volume alone yields, does not set a ceiling on total intense work and does not give a plateau week; those are the base's own or other entries' positions, not Laursen's.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: HIT blocks are placed as 2-4 week units with a lower-intensity consolidation phase after; block-periodised HIT evidence is in REF-136 Rønnestad 2014 and the low-intensity rationale in REF-140 Matomäki 2025.

Limitations

Published 2010, before the Norwegian model and HIDIT. Narrative review, not a meta-analysis; an effect size is given only for HIT (2-4%). Intense-event focus (rowing, swimming, kayak, track running, track cycling) — road and long-distance events are not the subject. Does not distinguish block from linear periodisation.

How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

regraded 2026-09-27 from A: narrative review from a leading HIIT group, no systematic method

Content correction 2026-09-27
"Z1 volume only: 1-2% improvement" -> deleted; the abstract gives no figure for volume alone.
"75% low / 10-15% threshold / 10-15% high; do NOT exceed 20-25% intense" -> the abstract gives ~75% low and 10-15% very high intensity, no threshold share and no ceiling.
"After 2-3 weeks plateau, then overtraining risk", "stagnation after >3 years", "HIT block #1/#2 (3-4 HIT/week)", "+1.1-2.2 ml/kg/min" -> deleted; not in the abstract. Added "six to eight sessions" and the ~75 s aerobic-dominance point.
Level A -> B+ (narrative review); Tier 2-3 -> 3-4; Sport extended to rowing, swimming (the abstract's intense events).
Cross-references to duplicate stubs repointed to their canonical entries (REF-085->REF-303); the stubs were emptied on 2026-09-27.