Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose and Methods: To compare the effects of a set of 12–30 min, maximal effort, constant load cycle bouts (HICT) to 12 short work: shorter rest (10 s: 5 s) interval sessions (INT) of similar duration and effort, performed on alternate days over 4 weeks, on performance and V̇O2 l.min−1. INT sessions consisted of repeated cycles of 10 s work followed by 5 s of recovery for 30 min. Fourteen male athletes (83 kg ± 6, 24year ± 2) were randomly assigned to HICT (n = 7) or INT (n = 7) training. Pre- and post-power output (PO), V̇O2 and V̇O2peak, during 60s, 3 min, and ramp (RAMP) tests were collected Results: Between group comparisons showed increased mean PO, pre- to post-INT training (p = .026) over the last min of the 3-min test whereas PO post-HICT training declined. INT showed greater training effects on the 60 s test than HCIT (INT 506 ± 45 to 535 ± 55 W; p = .002, Cd = .57; HCIT 513 ± 78 to 548 ± 83 W; p = .02, Cd = 27). RAMP peak PO and V̇O2peak increased within both groups (INT 341 ± 63 to 370 ± 48 W, p = .002, Cd = 0.52; HICT 332 ± 45 to 353 ± 44 W, p = .006, Cd = .53; 3.73 ± 0.68 to 4.06 ± 0.63 L·min−1, p = .001, Cd = .50; 3.75 ± 0.62 to 4.09 ± 0.52 L·min−1, p = .002, Cd = .59). Conclusion(s): These results show that utilizing this novel short work: shorter rest (10 s: 5 s) interval training paradigm will elicit better performances in moderate duration performances compared to continuous training of the same duration, effort, and frequency.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call