Response to Three Weeks of Sprint Interval Training Cannot Be Explained by the Exertional Level

Three-week sprint interval training (SIT) reduces cell-free DNA and low-frequency fatigue but does not induce VO2max improvement in older men

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the impact of sprint interval training (SIT) on both the acute and 3-week modulations of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), as well as its association with neuromuscular fatigue and physical performance in healthy young and old men.

METHODS

Ten young (20-25 year old) and nine elderly (63-72 year old) healthy men performed nine SIT sessions consisting of 4-to-6-all-out cycling repetitions of 30 s interspaced with 4-min rest intervals. We compared the maximal voluntary contractions torque, central activation ratio, low-frequency fatigue (LFF), and cfDNA concentrations between the groups before, immediately after, 1 h after, and 24 h after the first and ninth SIT sessions.

RESULTS

The plasma cfDNA levels were increased post-exercise (from 1.4 ± 0.258 to 1.91 ± 0.278 ng/ml (P < 0.01) on a log10 scale), without significant differences between the groups. However, older individuals showed a slight decrease in the baseline cfDNA values, from 1.39 ± 0.176 to 1.29 ± 0.085 ng/ml on a log10 scale, after 3 weeks (P = 0.043). Importantly, the elevation of the post-exercise cfDNA values was correlated with an increase in LFF in both groups. Three weeks of SIT induced an improvement in the recovery of LFF (main session effect, P = 0.0029); however, only the young group showed an increase in aerobic capacity (VO2max) (from 40.8 ± 6.74 to 43.0 ± 5.80 ml/kg/min, P = 0.0039).

CONCLUSION

Three weeks of SIT diminished the baseline cfDNA values in the old group, together with an improvement in the recovery of LFF. However, VO2max was increased only in the young group.

Neuromuscular and autonomic function is fully recovered within 24 h following a sprint interval training session

BACKGROUND

Recovery is a key factor to promote adaptations and enhance performance. Sprint Interval Training (SIT) is known to be an effective approach to improve overall physical function and health. Although a 2-day rest period is given between SIT sessions, the time-course of recovery after SIT is unknown.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine whether the neuromuscular and autonomic nervous systems would be impaired 24 and 48 h after an SIT session.

METHODS

Twenty-five healthy subjects performed an 8 × 15 s all-out session on a braked cycle ergometer with 2 min of rest between repetitions. Isometric maximal voluntary contraction (iMVC) and evoked forces to electrical nerve stimulation during iMVC and at rest were used to assess muscle contractile properties and voluntary activation before (Pre), 1 (Post24h), and 2 (Post48h) days after the session. Two maximal 7 s sprints with two different loads were performed at those same time-points to evaluate the maximal theoretical force (F0), velocity (V0) and maximal power (Pmax) production during a dynamic exercise. Additionally, nocturnal heart rate variability (HRV) was assessed the previous and the three subsequent nights to the exercise bout.

RESULTS

No significant impairments were observed for the iMVC or for the force evoked by electrical stimulation 1 day after the session. Similarly, F0, V0, and Pmax were unchanged at Post24h and Post48h. Furthermore, HRV did not reveal any temporal or frequential significant difference the nights following SIT compared to Pre.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show a full recovery of neuromuscular and autonomic functions a day after an all-out SIT session.

A Systematic Review Examining the Approaches Used to Estimate Interindividual Differences in Trainability and Classify Individual Responses to Exercise Training

Background: Many reports describe statistical approaches for estimating interindividual differences in trainability and classifying individuals as "responders" or "non-responders." The extent to which studies in the exercise training literature have adopted these statistical approaches remains unclear. Objectives: This systematic review primarily sought to determine the extent to which studies in the exercise training literature have adopted sound statistical approaches for examining individual responses to exercise training. We also (1) investigated the existence of interindividual differences in trainability, and (2) tested the hypothesis that less conservative thresholds inflate response rates compared with thresholds that consider error and a smallest worthwhile change (SWC)/minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Methods: We searched six databases: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, and SportDiscus. Our search spanned the aerobic, resistance, and clinical or rehabilitation training literature. Studies were included if they used human participants, employed standardized and supervised exercise training, and either: (1) stated that their exercise training intervention resulted in heterogenous responses, (2) statistically estimated interindividual differences in trainability, and/or (3) classified individual responses. We calculated effect sizes (ES_IR) to examine the presence of interindividual differences in trainability. We also compared response rates (n = 614) across classification approaches that considered neither, one of, or both errors and an SWC or MCID. We then sorted response rates from studies that also reported mean changes and response thresholds (n = 435 response rates) into four quartiles to confirm our ancillary hypothesis that larger mean changes produce larger response rates. Results: Our search revealed 3,404 studies, and 149 were included in our systematic review. Few studies (n = 9) statistically estimated interindividual differences in trainability. The results from these few studies present a mixture of evidence for the presence of interindividual differences in trainability because several ES_IR values lay above, below, or crossed zero. Zero-based thresholds and larger mean changes significantly (both p < 0.01) inflated response rates. Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence demonstrating why future studies should statistically estimate interindividual differences in trainability and consider error and an SWC or MCID when classifying individual responses to exercise training. Systematic Review Registration: [website], identifier [registration number].