Both approaches resulted in similar effects even when the total rest duration required to be allocated was relatively short. Coaches and trainees can select either method depending on their preferences and training objectives. 8/8

Similar to the first study, we found highly comparable performance, physiological and psychological outcomes (excluding perception of autonomy, which was higher under the SS condition). Most participants (65%) favored the SS condition. 7/8

In both conditions, the between-interval rest duration per block amounted to 270s. In the fixed condition, the rest was uniformly 90s between intervals, whereas in the SS condition, the athletes chose how to allocate the 270s of rest per block. 6/8

24 professional female soccer players completed two running HIIT sessions. Each session consisted of twelve 15s intervals, divided into three blocks, with the goal of maximizing the total distance covered. 5/8

Here, we conceptually replicated the previous study with three changes: (1) we tested female soccer players, (2) who performed a HIIT protocol on a non-motorized treadmill, (3) with a considerably simpler rest allocation task in the SS condition. 4/8

In the fixed condition, cyclists rested for 30s between intervals, whereas in the SS, cyclists distributed 720s (8 sets x 30s) between intervals however they saw fit. We found minimal differences between conditions. 3/8

Background: In 2023, we compared fixed and SS rest duration in a cycling HIIT protocol composed of nine 30s intervals while matching total rest duration. 2/8