Comparison of anaerobic speed reserve and maximal aerobic speed methods to prescribe short format high-intensity interval training

Physiological, perceptual and neuromuscular responses of team sport athletes to short duration high intensity interval training using cycling

PURPOSE

To examine the acute physiological, perceptual and neuromuscular responses of team sport athletes to two volume-matched cycling high intensity interval training (HIIT) sessions with short work bouts (< 60 s).

METHODS

Using and randomised crossover design, 16 male team sport players completed 2 × 6 min (with 5 min between sets) repeated efforts of 15 s or 30 s exercising at 120% power at V ˙ O2 max (p V ˙ O2 max) followed by matched-duration passive recovery on a cycle ergometer.

RESULTS

Absolute mean V ˙ O2 (p = 0.0257) and relative mean V ˙ O2 (p = 0.0275) were higher in 15 s than 30 s HIIT. Total time at > 90% V ˙ O2 max during the HIIT was higher for 15 s compared to 30 s HIIT (p = 0.0257). Heart rate remained the same between trials (p = 0.805) as did oxygen pulse (p = 0.1161). B[La] was lower in 15 s compared to 30 s HIIT (p = 0.0257). Differences in dRPE-L (p = 0.0495), dRPE-B (p = 0.0495) and dRPE-O (p = 0.1837) suggested lower perceived exertion in 15 s compared to 30 s HIIT. Maximal isometric knee extension force revealed a greater reduction after 30 s HIIT (p = 0.0495).

CONCLUSION

Team sport athletes using short duration cycling-based HIIT should use 15 s work intervals to elicit greater time working near V ˙ O2 max at a lower perceived exertion and with smaller reductions in peak muscle force after exercise.

Anaerobic speed reserve and acute responses to a short-format high-intensity interval session in runners

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess relationships of acute responses to short-format high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with the anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) of adolescent runners.

DESIGN

Pre-post intervention design.

METHODS

Eighteen highly-trained youth runners (15.83 ± 0.86 years) underwent maximal sprinting speed (MSS) and maximal aerobic speed (MAS) assessments to determine ASR (MSS minus MAS) and a standardized HIIT protocol (2 × (20 × 15 s/15 s @110 % MAS)) was administered. Pre/post-HIIT assessments included biochemical (i.e., creatine kinase (CK)), neuromuscular (countermovement jump, CMJ; reactive strength index, RSI), cardiac (i.e., heart rate recovery (HRR)), and athlete-reported outcome measures (e.g., single item for fatigue). Pearson's r was calculated to assess relationships between acute responses and ASR, MSS, MAS, and relative intensity of the HIIT (%ASR).

RESULTS

Athletes' ASR and %ASR were significantly associated with the pre/post difference of CK (r = -0.75; p < 0.001; r = 0.74; p < 0.001, respectively), CMJ height, and RSI (r ≥ 0.69; p ≤ 0.002; r ≤ -0.49; p ≤ 0.04, respectively). However, HRR did not correlate significantly with ASR or %ASR (r ≤ 0.37, p ≥ 0.131, r ≥ -0.31; p ≥ 0.22, respectively). The pre/post difference of RSI correlated with MAS (r = -0.54; p = 0.02), and the pre/post difference of CK (r = -0.50; p = 0.034) and of CMJ height (r = 0.76; p < 0.001) with MSS. Regarding athlete-reported measures, ASR and %ASR showed significant associations with most fatigue and recovery variables (r ≥ 0.57; p ≤ 0.014, r ≥ 0.57; p ≤ 0.013, respectively). The pre/post difference of the single item for fatigue showed a positive relationship with MSS (r = 0.49; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute biochemical, neuromuscular, and athlete-reported responses to short-format HIIT showed strong relationships with ASR and MSS, indicating higher internal load in athletes with a lower ASR and MSS by using a higher %ASR, compared to athletes with a higher ASR and MSS. These findings can help to tailor training programs to individual needs and avoid possible overload.

Does anaerobic speed reserve influence post-activation performance enhancement in endurance runners?

We investigated the influence of anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) on post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE). Twenty-two endurance runners and triathletes were evaluated for maximum sprinting speed (MSS) and countermovement jump (CMJ) before (non-fatigued) and after (fatigued) an incremental running test. They were allocated in LASR (low-ASR) and HASR (high-ASR) groups for comparisons between conditions. HASR showed greater CMJ and MSS (both p ≤ 0.005) performances, with enhanced CMJ in fatigued condition (p ≤ 0.008). Significant correlations were found between ASR, CMJ, and MSS in both conditions (p ≤ 0.01) for the entire sample, and between ∆CMJ and ∆MSS (p ≤ 0.001) in LASR. Our results show that ASR profile influences PAPE.

Individualizing Basketball-Specific Interval Training Using Anaerobic Speed Reserve: Effects on Physiological and Hormonal Adaptations

PURPOSE

We compared the adaptive responses to supramaximal high-intensity interval training (HIIT) individualized according to anaerobic speed reserve (ASR), the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (VIFT), and velocity associated with maximum oxygen uptake (MAS) to determine which approach facilitates more identical adaptations across athletes with different profiles.

METHODS

Thirty national-level basketball players (age = 28.4 [5] y; body mass = 88.9 [6.3] kg; height = 190 [4.8] cm) were randomly assigned to 3 training groups performing 2 sets of 4, 6, 8, 6, 8, and 10-minute runs (from first to sixth week, respectively), consisting of 15-second running at Δ%20ASR (MAS + 0.2 × ASR), 95%VIFT, and 120%MAS, with 15 seconds recovery between efforts and a 3-minute relief between sets.

RESULTS

All 3 interval interventions significantly (P < .05) enhanced maximum oxygen uptake (V˙O2max), oxygen pulse (V˙O2/HR), first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2), cardiac output (Q˙max), stroke volume, peak and average power output, testosterone levels, and testosterone-to-cortisol ratio following the training period. Different values of interindividual variability (coefficient of variation) for the percentage changes of the measured variables were observed in response to HIITASR, HIITvIFT, and HIITMAS for V˙O2max (8.7%, 18.8%, 34.6%, respectively), V˙O2/HR (9.5%, 15.0%, 28.6%), VT1 (9.6%, 19.6%, 34.6%), VT2 (21.8%, 32.4%, 56.7%), Q˙max (8.2%, 16.9%, 28.8%), stroke volume (7.9%, 15.2%, 23.5%), peak power output (20%, 22%, 37.3%), average power output (21.1%, 21.3%, 32.5%), testosterone (52.9%, 61.6%, 59.9%), and testosterone-to-cortisol ratio (55.1%, 59.5%, 57.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Supramaximal HIIT performed at Δ%20ASR resulted in more uniform physiological adaptations than HIIT interventions prescribed using VIFT or MAS. Although hormonal changes do not follow this approach, all the approaches induced an anabolic effect.

Uniform Homeostatic Stress Through Individualized Interval Training Facilitates Homogeneous Adaptations Across Rowers With Different Profiles

PURPOSE

This study compared the effects of individualizing supramaximal interval rowing interventions using anaerobic power reserve (APR [high-intensity interval training (HIIT) prescribed according to individual APR (HIITAPR)]) and power associated with maximal oxygen uptake (WV˙O2max [HIIT prescribed based on the individual WV˙O2max (HIITW)]) on the homogeneity of physiological and performance adaptations.

METHODS

Twenty-four well-trained rowers (age 24.8 [4.3] y, stature 182.5 [3] cm, body mass 86.1 [4.3]) were randomized into interventions consisting of 4 × 30-second intervals at 130%APR (WV˙O2max + 0.3 × maximal sprint power) with weekly progression by increasing the number of repetitions per set (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, from first to sixth session) and the same sets and repetitions with the intensity described as 130% WV˙O2max. The work-to-recovery ratio was 1:1 for repetitions and 3 minutes between sets. Responses of aerobic fitness indices, power output, cardiac hemodynamics, locomotor abilities, and time-trial performance were examined.

RESULTS

Both HIITAPR and HIITW interventions significantly improved V˙O2max, lactate threshold, cardiac hemodynamics, and 2000-m performance, with no between-groups difference in changes over time. However, HIITAPR resulted in a lower interindividual variability in adaptations in V˙O2max and related physiological parameters, but this is not the case for athletic performance, which can depend on a multitude of factors beyond physiological parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrated that expressing supramaximal interval intensity as a proportion of APR facilitates imposing the same degrees of homeostatic stress and leads to more homogeneous physiological adaptations in maximal variables when compared to prescribing a supramaximal HIIT intervention using WV˙O2max. However, lower interindividual variability would be seen in submaximal variables if HIIT interventions were prescribed using WV˙O2max.