Intra-individual physiological response of recreational runners to different training mesocycles: a randomized cross-over study

Peter Düking,Billy Sperlich,Hans-Christer Holmberg,Robert Leppich,Philipp Kunz

doi:10.1007/s00421-020-04477-4

Peter Düking, Billy Sperlich + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-020-04477-4

Copy DOI

Abstract

PurposePronounced differences in individual physiological adaptation may occur following various training mesocycles in runners. Here we aimed to assess the individual changes in performance and physiological adaptation of recreational runners performing mesocycles with different intensity, duration and frequency.MethodsEmploying a randomized cross-over design, the intra-individual physiological responses [i.e., peak ({dot{text V}}{text O}_{2 {rm peak}}) and submaximal ({dot{text V}}{text O}_{2 {rm submax}}) oxygen uptake, velocity at lactate thresholds (V2, V4)] and performance (time-to-exhaustion (TTE)) of 13 recreational runners who performed three 3-week sessions of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), high-volume low-intensity training (HVLIT) or more but shorter sessions of HVLIT (high-frequency training; HFT) were assessed.Results{dot{text V}}{text O}_{2 {rm submax}}, V2, V4 and TTE were not altered by HIIT, HVLIT or HFT (p > 0.05). {dot{text V}}{text O}_{2 {rm peak}} improved to the same extent following HVLIT (p = 0.045) and HFT (p = 0.02). The number of moderately negative responders was higher following HIIT (15.4%); and HFT (15.4%) than HVLIT (7.6%). The number of very positive responders was higher following HVLIT (38.5%) than HFT (23%) or HIIT (7.7%). 46% of the runners responded positively to two mesocycles, while 23% did not respond to any.ConclusionOn a group level, none of the interventions altered {dot{text V}}{text O}_{2 {rm submax}}, V2, V4 or TTE, while HVLIT and HFT improved {dot{text V}}{text O}_{2 {rm peak}}. The mean adaptation index indicated similar numbers of positive, negative and non-responders to HIIT, HVLIT and HFT, but more very positive responders to HVLIT than HFT or HIIT. 46% responded positively to two mesocycles, while 23% did not respond to any. These findings indicate that the magnitude of responses to HIIT, HVLIT and HFT is highly individual and no pattern was apparent.

Highlights

The three physiological characteristics thought to be the primary determinants of running performance (Midgley et al 2007) are commonly tested in the laboratory: (i) the maximal1 3 Vol.:(0123456789)European Journal of Applied Physiology (2020) 120:2705–2713 capacity to take up, transport and utilize oxygen; (ii) the ability to maintain high speed without accumulating lactate (Midgley et al 2007); and (iii) running economy
The main findings were as follows: 1) On group level V O2submax, V2, V4 and TTE did not change with high-intensity interval training (HIIT), high-volume lowintensity training (HVLIT) or High frequency training (HFT) (p > 0.05); 2) On group level, V O2peak improved to the same extent following HVLIT (p = 0.045) and HFT (p = 0.02); 3) The number of moderately negative responders was higher following HIIT (15.4%); and HFT (15.4%) than HVLIT (7.6%); Based on our own previous experience (Zinner et al 2018) and to avoid non-functional overreaching and risk of injuries (Schwellnus et al 2016; Soligard et al 2016), the interventions were designed to involve an increase in training load of 10% Training impulse (TRIMP) w k−1
V O2peak was improved by HVLIT (+ 2.8%) and HFT (+ 4.5%), with no significant difference between these interventions in this respect

Summary

Introduction

European Journal of Applied Physiology (2020) 120:2705–2713 capacity to take up, transport and utilize oxygen (i.e., peak oxygen uptake [ V O2peak]); (ii) the ability to maintain high speed without accumulating lactate (Midgley et al 2007) (the lactate threshold); and (iii) running economy (often expressed as the oxygen utilized while running at a given constant speed). To improve these variables, runners either enhance their volume of exercise per session (high-volume low-intensity training (HVLIT) at a blood lactate concentration < 2 mmol·l−1), increase the intensity of the exercise (e.g., in the form of high-intensity interval training (HIIT)) and/or train more sessions per week (HFT). A training load as extensive as theirs might not be feasible or even safe for all (amateur) athletes (Schwellnus et al 2016; Soligard et al 2016)

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion