Those Apples Don’t Taste Like Oranges! Why ‘Equalising’ HIIT and MICT Protocols Does Not Make Sense

We read with interest the recent article by Andreato entitled ‘High-Intensity Interval Training: Methodological Considerations for Interpreting Results and Conducting Research’ [ 1. Andreato L.V. High-intensity interval training: methodological considerations for interpreting results and conducting research. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2020; 31: 812-817 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar ]. We applaud the author’s call for greater clarity in defining and reporting high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols; this is much needed to move the field forward. However, we dispute the author’s principal claim that to avoid bias when comparing HIIT with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), it is necessary to ‘equalise’ (match) sessions for energy expenditure (or workload performed, as a proxy for energy expenditure). Upon reading the article, we failed to find any sound justification for this assertion.