Conventional methods to prescribe exercise intensity are ineffective for exhaustive interval training

PURPOSE: To compare methods of relative intensity prescription for their ability to normalise performance (i.e., time to exhaustion), physiological, and perceptual responses to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) between individuals. METHODS: Sixteen male and two female cyclists (age: 38 ± 11 years, height: 177 ± 7 cm, body mass: 71.6 ± 7.9 kg, maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O(2max)): 54.3 ± 8.9 ml·kg(−1) min(−1)) initially undertook an incremental test to exhaustion, a 3 min all-out test, and a 20 min time-trial to determine prescription benchmarks. Then, four HIIT sessions (4 min on, 2 min off) were each performed to exhaustion at: the work rate associated with the gas exchange threshold ([Formula: see text] (GET)) plus 70% of the difference between [Formula: see text] (GET) and the work rate associated with [Formula: see text] O(2max); 85% of the maximal work rate of the incremental test (85%[Formula: see text] (max)); 120% of the mean work rate of the 20 min time-trial (120%TT); and the work rate predicted to expend, in 4 min, 80% of the work capacity above critical power. Acute HIIT responses were modelled with participant as a random effect to provide estimates of inter-individual variability. RESULTS: For all dependent variables, the magnitude of inter-individual variability was high, and confidence intervals overlapped substantially, indicating that the relative intensity normalisation methods were similarly poor. Inter-individual coefficients of variation for time to exhaustion varied from 44.2% (85%[Formula: see text] (max)) to 59.1% (120%TT), making it difficult to predict acute HIIT responses for an individual. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that the methods of intensity prescription investigated do not normalise acute responses to HIIT between individuals.