REF-183 · Faiss et al., 2024 · Journal of Sports Sciences · Paper

Repeated-sprint training in hypoxia: A review with 10 years of perspective

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Key Findings

Repeated-sprint training in hypoxia (RSH: repetition of short, <30 s, "all-out" sprints with incomplete recoveries in hypoxia — a "live low-train high" approach) is supported by the review as an efficient "but not magic" intervention: 77% of the controlled studies reported an additional benefit from adding hypoxia compared with the same training in normoxia (RSN).

The benefit is mainly for team-, combat- and racket-sport athletes, and for any sport (endurance included) that requires repeated accelerations with less fatigue.

Mechanisms (as stated in the abstract)

1

Microcirculatory vasodilation → improved muscle perfusion and/or oxygenation during the sprints.

2

Increased muscular phosphocreatine content.

Both are offered as explanations for the superiority of RSH over RSN. The review also gives guidelines on interval duration, exercise-to-rest ratio and training volume (specific values are in the full text, not the abstract).

Practical Application

Adding hypoxia to repeated short all-out sprints (<30 s, incomplete recovery) gave an extra benefit over the same sprints in normoxia in 77% of controlled studies, mainly for team-, combat- and racket-sport athletes and for endurance athletes who need repeated accelerations; the proposed mechanisms are better microcirculatory perfusion/oxygenation and higher muscle phosphocreatine (narrative review, Faiss 2024).
The target is repeated-sprint ability, not aerobic capacity: RSH is a tool for events decided by repeated attacks and accelerations, not for steady-state performance.
Requires a hypoxic chamber, altitude tent or hypoxicator — for most athletes unavailable, and without it the training is simply repeated-sprint training in normoxia (RSN), which the review treats as the comparator, not as worthless.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: when a chamber is available the base schedules RSH as a short block (about 1 session per week of 6-8 × 20-30 s sprints with ~2 min recovery) inside a build phase; the review's own duration/ratio/volume guidelines were not checked against the abstract.
Sea-level alternative for sprint capacity: short-sprint training on the bike (REF-191).

Limitations

From the design as the abstract reports it: a narrative review with no meta-analysis; the headline is a vote count (77% of the controlled studies reported an additional benefit with added hypoxia) and carries no effect size.
The benefit is described mainly for team-, combat- and racket-sport athletes; for endurance sports the abstract names only those that require repeated accelerations.
The mechanisms (microcirculatory vasodilation, muscle phosphocreatine) are offered as what "may help explain" the advantage, not as demonstrated causes.
The review's guidelines on interval duration, exercise-to-rest ratio and training volume are not stated in the abstract.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

regraded 2026-09-27 from A: narrative review from the leading RSH group (Faiss, Millet), no meta-analysis

Content correction 2026-09-27
"Systematic review (109 studies: 52 training, 49 cross-sectional, 8 reviews)" -> abstract describes a narrative 10-year review; counts not in the abstract, deleted. Level A -> B+.
Mechanisms (mitochondrial volume in fast-twitch fibres, capillary density, neuromuscular force) -> abstract names microcirculatory vasodilation/perfusion and muscle phosphocreatine; replaced.
Added the abstract's 77%-of-controlled-studies figure and target populations; RSH block prescription relabelled as the base's own practice; Sport -> general.
2026-09-28: heading "Key Finding" -> "Key Findings" (content unchanged) and Limitations added from the abstract (Europe PMC PMID 39445500).