Abstract
Purpose: To determine the impact of interval training frequency in elite endurance athletes. It was hypothesized that two longer sessions would elicit greater performance improvements and physiological adaptation than four shorter sessions at the same intensity. Methods: Elite cross-country skiers and biathletes were randomly assigned to either a high-frequency group (HF group) (5 M, 1 F, age 22 (19–26), VO2max 67.8 (65.5–70.2) mL/kg/min) doing four short interval sessions per week or a low-frequency group (LF group) (8 M, 1 F, age 22 (18–23), VO2max 70.7 (67.0–73.9) mL/kg/min) doing two longer interval sessions. All interval sessions were performed at ~85% of maximum heart rate, and groups were matched for total weekly training volume. Pre- and post-intervention, athletes completed an 8 km rollerski time-trial, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) test, and an incremental, submaximal exercise test. Results: The LF group had a statistically significant improved time-trial performance following the intervention (p = 0.04), with no statistically significant changes in the HF group. Similarly, percentage utilization of VO2max at anaerobic threshold (p = 0.04) and exercise economy (p = 0.01) were statistically significantly improved following the intervention in the LF group only. No statistically significant changes in VO2max were observed in either group. Conclusions: Two longer interval sessions appear superior to four shorter sessions per week in promoting endurance adaptations and performance improvements in elite endurance athletes. Despite matched training volume and exercise intensity, the larger, more concentrated exercise stimulus in the LF group appears to induce more favorable adaptations. The longer time between training sessions in the LF group may also have allowed athletes to recover more effectively and better “absorb” the training. These findings are in line with the “best practice” observed by many of the world’s best endurance athletes.
Highlights
At a senior level, endurance athletes frequently train up to 1000 h per year, of which 80%–90%is typically conducted at low intensity [1,2,3]
All included test subjects completed > 80% of the interval sessions and no statistically significant differences were observed in training compliance between the groups
When prescribed interval sessions were skipped, that was mainly due to the athletes requesting a rest due to a feeling of tiredness
Summary
Is typically conducted at low intensity [1,2,3]. The remaining 10%–20% is composed of high-intensity training in the form of competition, high-intensity continuous training, and interval training. The principle of interval training was first described by Reindell & Roskamm in 1959 [4] and is a method of training which alternates between exercise periods with high and low intensity. Interval training allows the athlete to maintain a higher intensity and work for longer time at high intensities (>85% maximal heart rate (HRmax)) [5,6,7,8]. Increased training time at high intensity creates better conditions to optimally stimulate the development of performance. Public Health 2020, 17, 3190; doi:10.3390/ijerph17093190 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
