REF-781 · Barnes et al., 2013 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Effects of Different Uphill Interval-Training Programs on Running Economy and Performance

Blimited evidenceMeasured on trained to highly trained athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Twenty well-trained runners did an incremental treadmill test, force-plate jumps and a 5-km time trial, were randomised to one of 5 uphill interval-training programmes of different intensity for 6 weeks, and repeated all tests. Each runner's percentage change was modelled against the rank order of training intensity.

There was no clear optimum for time-trial performance, which improved by 2.0% (±0.6%) on average over all intensities. The highest intensity was clearly optimal for running economy (2.4% ± 1.4%) and for all neuromuscular measures; other aerobic measures were optimal near the middle intensity.

Participants

n=20 (abstract: "Twenty well-trained runners"). Sex, age and performance level are not given in the abstract; group sizes per programme are not given.

Protocol

Pre and post (after 6 wk): incremental treadmill test (aerobic and biomechanical measures), jumps on a force plate (neuromuscular measures), 5-km time trial.
Random assignment to 1 of 5 uphill interval-training programmes differing in intensity. The interval durations, gradients and session frequency are not given in the abstract.
Analysis: each runner's percentage change modelled as a quadratic function of the rank order of training intensity; uncertainty as 90% confidence limits by bootstrapping.

Key Results

5-km time trial: no clear optimal intensity; mean improvement over all intensities 2.0% (confidence limits ±0.6%).
Running economy: highest intensity clearly optimal (improvement of 2.4% ± 1.4%).
Neuromuscular measures: highest intensity clearly optimal for all of them.
Other aerobic measures: optimal near the middle intensity.
Biomechanical measures: no consistent optima.

Practical Application

In twenty well-trained runners randomised to one of five uphill interval programmes for 6 weeks, 5-km time-trial performance improved by 2.0% on average with no clear best intensity, while the hardest programme was clearly best for running economy (2.4%) and all neuromuscular measures (dose-response, no flat control). Hill intervals work for a distance runner; the hardest programme bought the most economy and neuromuscular gain, and any high-intensity uphill format helped the 5-km.
The authors' own conclusion: until more data exist, runners can assume that any form of high-intensity uphill interval training will benefit 5-km time-trial performance.
For economy and neuromuscular qualities, pick the highest intensity of the options tested; for the other aerobic measures, the middle intensities did best.
The abstract does not give the actual interval prescriptions (durations, gradients, recoveries), so this entry cannot supply a session; say so rather than inventing one.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: for a trail or mountain runner, uphill intervals double as terrain-specific work, but they do not train descending — pair them with graded downhill exposure (REF-782, REF-660).

Limitations

Twenty runners across five programmes: few runners per intensity, and no control group doing flat intervals or usual training, so the 2.0% time-trial gain cannot be attributed to uphill work specifically.
Only 6 weeks; longer-term effects unknown.
Programme details (interval length, gradient, recovery, weekly frequency) are not in the abstract.
One performance outcome (5-km time trial on unstated terrain); transfer to trail racing is inference.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

randomised, n=20 split across five programmes (group sizes not given in the abstract) and no non-uphill control, so the 2.0% gain over all intensities is effectively uncontrolled pre-post