Franck Brocherie1, Grégoire P Millet, Jean-Benoit Morin, Olivier Girard. 1. 1ISSUL, Institute of Sports Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, SWITZERLAND; 2Faculty of Biology and Medicine, Department of Physiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, SWITZERLAND; 3Laboratory of Human Motricity, Education Sport and Health, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, FRANCE; 4Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Athlete Health and Performance Research Centre, Doha, QATAR.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Compelling evidence suggests larger performance decrements during hypoxic versus normoxic repeated sprinting. Yet the underlying mechanical alterations have not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, we examined the effects of different levels of normobaric hypoxia on running mechanical performance during repeated treadmill sprinting. METHODS:Thirteen team sport athletes performed eight 5-s sprints with 25 s of passive recovery on an instrumented treadmill in either normoxia near sea level (SL; FiO2 = 20.9%), moderate normobaric hypoxia (MH; FiO2 = 16.8%; corresponding to ~1800 m altitude), or severe normobaric hypoxia (SH; FiO2 = 13.3%; ~3600 m). RESULTS:Net power output in the horizontal direction did not differ (P > 0.05) between conditions for the first sprint (mean ± SD, pooled values: 13.09 ± 1.97 W·kg) but was lower for the eight sprints in SH compared with SL (-7.3% ± 5.5%, P < 0.001) and MH (-7.1% ± 5.9%, P < 0.01), with no difference between SL and MH (+0.1% ± 8.0%, P = 1.00). Sprint decrement score was similar between conditions (pooled values: -11.4% ± 7.9%, P = 0.49). Mean vertical, horizontal, and resultant ground reaction forces decreased (P < 0.001) from the first to the last repetition in all conditions (pooled values: -2.4% ± 1.9%, -8.6% ± 6.5%, and -2.4% ± 1.9%). This was further accompanied by larger kinematic (mainly contact time: +4.0% ± 2.9%, P < 0.001, and +3.3% ± 3.6%, P < 0.05, respectively; stride frequency: -2.3% ± 2.0%, P < 0.01, and -2.3% ± 2.8%, P < 0.05, respectively) and spring-mass characteristics (mainly vertical stiffness: -6.0% ± 3.9% and -5.1% ± 5.7%, respectively, P < 0.01) fatigue-induced changes in SH compared with SL and MH. CONCLUSION: In SH, impairments in repeated sprint ability and in associated kinetics/kinematics and spring-mass characteristics exceed those observed near SL and in MH (i.e., no or minimal difference). Specifically, SH accentuates the repeated sprint ability fatigue-related inability to effectively apply forward-oriented ground reaction force and to maintain vertical stiffness and stride frequency.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Compelling evidence suggests larger performance decrements during hypoxic versus normoxic repeated sprinting. Yet the underlying mechanical alterations have not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, we examined the effects of different levels of normobaric hypoxia on running mechanical performance during repeated treadmill sprinting. METHODS: Thirteen team sport athletes performed eight 5-s sprints with 25 s of passive recovery on an instrumented treadmill in either normoxia near sea level (SL; FiO2 = 20.9%), moderate normobaric hypoxia (MH; FiO2 = 16.8%; corresponding to ~1800 m altitude), or severe normobaric hypoxia (SH; FiO2 = 13.3%; ~3600 m). RESULTS: Net power output in the horizontal direction did not differ (P > 0.05) between conditions for the first sprint (mean ± SD, pooled values: 13.09 ± 1.97 W·kg) but was lower for the eight sprints in SH compared with SL (-7.3% ± 5.5%, P < 0.001) and MH (-7.1% ± 5.9%, P < 0.01), with no difference between SL and MH (+0.1% ± 8.0%, P = 1.00). Sprint decrement score was similar between conditions (pooled values: -11.4% ± 7.9%, P = 0.49). Mean vertical, horizontal, and resultant ground reaction forces decreased (P < 0.001) from the first to the last repetition in all conditions (pooled values: -2.4% ± 1.9%, -8.6% ± 6.5%, and -2.4% ± 1.9%). This was further accompanied by larger kinematic (mainly contact time: +4.0% ± 2.9%, P < 0.001, and +3.3% ± 3.6%, P < 0.05, respectively; stride frequency: -2.3% ± 2.0%, P < 0.01, and -2.3% ± 2.8%, P < 0.05, respectively) and spring-mass characteristics (mainly vertical stiffness: -6.0% ± 3.9% and -5.1% ± 5.7%, respectively, P < 0.01) fatigue-induced changes in SH compared with SL and MH. CONCLUSION: In SH, impairments in repeated sprint ability and in associated kinetics/kinematics and spring-mass characteristics exceed those observed near SL and in MH (i.e., no or minimal difference). Specifically, SH accentuates the repeated sprint ability fatigue-related inability to effectively apply forward-oriented ground reaction force and to maintain vertical stiffness and stride frequency.
Authors: Olivier Girard; François Billaut; Ryan J Christian; Paul S Bradley; David J Bishop Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Erich Hohenauer; Livia Freitag; Miriam Herten; Julia Siallagan; Elke Pollock; Wolfgang Taube; Ron Clijsen Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.755