| Literature DB >> 23861854 |
J Colin Boyd1, Craig A Simpson, Mary E Jung, Brendon J Gurd.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to determine if the adaptations to high intensity interval training (HIT) are mitigated when both intensity and training volume (i.e. exercise energy expenditure) are reduced.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23861854 PMCID: PMC3702554 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Participant Characteristics.
| LO | HI | |||
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |
|
| 10 | – | 9 | – |
|
| 22.7±4.3 | – | 22.7±3.8 | – |
|
| 184±8 | – | 180±7 | – |
|
| 105±14 | 103±15 | 102±12 | 102±11 |
|
| 30.7±3.0 | 30.2±3.0 | 32.3±2.1 | 32.2±1.9 |
|
| 105±8 | 103±8 | 108±5 | 107±6 |
|
| 3619±954 | 3892±663 | 3607±594 | 4489±486 |
|
| 35.8±8.2 | 38.6±6.5 | 35.4±5.7 | 44.7±4.9 |
|
| 293±39 | 313±47 | 308±49 | 336±49 |
|
| 189±11 | 188±8 | 197±8 | 191±10 |
|
| 20.9±4.4 | 22.7±4.9 | 18.8±3.2 | 24.3±3.6 |
|
| 2481±560 | 2277±588 | 2365±599 | 2034±533 |
|
| 4.7±0.2 | 4.7±0.2 | 4.8±0.4 | 4.7±0.4 |
|
| 10.0±2.5 | 10.5±3.2 | 12.1±5.5 | 10.9±4.2 |
|
| 2.1±0.6 | 2.1±0.6 | 2.5±1.1 | 2.3±0.9 |
|
| 141±17 | – | 166±12 | – |
|
| 206±27 | – | 308±48 | – |
Values are mean ± SD. yrs, years; cm, centimetres; kg, kilograms; BMI, body mass index; m, metres; mmol/L, millimoles per litre; µIU, micro international units; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; W, watts; s, seconds; HRpeak, maximal heart rate from VO2peak test; bpm, beats per minute; Training HR, average heart rate from first training session. Interval WR, average power produced during intervals from first training session.
Significant (p<0.05) effect of training.
Significantly different (p<0.05) from LO.
Significant (p<0.05) interaction between groups.
Figure 1Effect of HI and LO on markers of skeletal muscle oxidative capacity.
Changes in protein content of COX I and COX IV (A) and the maximal enzyme activities of citrate synthase (CS) and β-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase (βHAD) (C). Representative western blots, including loading controls, are also shown (B). † Significant (p<0.05) effect of training. ‡ Non-significant (p = 0.07) effect of training.
Figure 2Effects of HI and LO on PGC-1α, AMPK, and SIRT1 protein content.
Changes in the protein content of PGC-1α, AMPK and SIRT1 (A). Representative western blots, including loading controls, are also shown (B). * Significant (p<0.05) effect of training. † Significant (p<0.05) interaction.
Figure 3Improvements in VO2peak and exercise performance are greater following HI than LO.
The mean VO2peak (A) and time to 500 kcal (B) for the LO and HI groups are shown. The individual change in VO2peak for all participants are also shown (C). *Significant (p<0.05) difference from Pre. † Significant (p<0.05) effect of training. ‡ Significant (p<0.05) interaction. ††Non-significant (p = 0.07) interaction.
Figure 4Peak O2 pulse increases to a greater extent following HI than LO.
*Significant (p<0.05) difference from Pre. † Significant (p<0.05) effect of training. ‡ Significant (p<0.05) interaction.
Effect of training on plasma pro- and anti-inflammatory markers.
| LO | HI | |||
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |
|
| 81.60±42.32 | 71.06±28.24 | 68.40±25.62 | 55.14±15.94 |
|
| 1.74±1.31 | 1.69±1.46 | 1.79±0.89 | 2.27±1.00 |
|
| 2.22±1.61 | 2.07±1.55 | 1.83±1.03 | 1.84±0.76 |
Values are mean ± SD. IL-6, interleukin-6; TNFα, tumor necrosis factor alpha; ng/ml, nanograms per ml; pg/ml, picograms per ml.
Significant (p<0.05) effect of training.