Stefano Benítez-Flores1, André R Medeiros1, Fabrício Azevedo Voltarelli2, Eliseo Iglesias-Soler3, Kenji Doma4, Herbert G Simões1, Thiago Santos Rosa1, Daniel A Boullosa5. 1. Post-Graduation Program in Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasília, Brazil. 2. Post-graduation Program in Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, Brazil. 3. Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, University of A Coruna, A Coruña, Spain. 4. Sport and Exercise Science, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. 5. Sport and Exercise Science, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. daniel.boullosa@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the combined effects of resistance and sprint training, with very short efforts (5 s), on aerobic and anaerobic performances, and cardiometabolic health-related parameters in young healthy adults. METHODS:Thirty young physically active individuals were randomly allocated into four groups: resistance training (RTG), sprint interval training (SITG), concurrent training (CTG), and control (CONG). Participants trained 3 days/week for 2 weeks in the high-intensity interventions that consisted of 6-12 "all out" efforts of 5 s separated by 24 s of recovery, totalizing ~ 13 min per session, with 48-72 h of recovery between sessions. Body composition, vertical jump, lower body strength, aerobic and anaerobic performances, heart rate variability (HRV), and redox status were evaluated before and after training. Total work (TW), rating of perceived exertion (CR-10 RPE) and mean HR (HRmean) were monitored during sessions. Incidental physical activity (PA), dietary intake and perceived stress were also controlled. RESULTS:Maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max) significantly increased in SITG and CTG (P < 0.05). Lower body strength improved in RTG and CTG (P < 0.05), while countermovement jump (CMJ) was improved in RTG (P = 0.04) only. Redox status improved after all interventions (P < 0.05). No differences were found in TW, PA, dietary intake, and psychological stress between groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RT and SIT protocols with very short "all out" efforts, either performed in isolation, or combined, demonstrated improvement in several physical fitness- and health-related parameters. However, CT was the most efficient exercise intervention with improvement observed in the majority of the parameters.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the combined effects of resistance and sprint training, with very short efforts (5 s), on aerobic and anaerobic performances, and cardiometabolic health-related parameters in young healthy adults. METHODS: Thirty young physically active individuals were randomly allocated into four groups: resistance training (RTG), sprint interval training (SITG), concurrent training (CTG), and control (CONG). Participants trained 3 days/week for 2 weeks in the high-intensity interventions that consisted of 6-12 "all out" efforts of 5 s separated by 24 s of recovery, totalizing ~ 13 min per session, with 48-72 h of recovery between sessions. Body composition, vertical jump, lower body strength, aerobic and anaerobic performances, heart rate variability (HRV), and redox status were evaluated before and after training. Total work (TW), rating of perceived exertion (CR-10 RPE) and mean HR (HRmean) were monitored during sessions. Incidental physical activity (PA), dietary intake and perceived stress were also controlled. RESULTS: Maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max) significantly increased in SITG and CTG (P < 0.05). Lower body strength improved in RTG and CTG (P < 0.05), while countermovement jump (CMJ) was improved in RTG (P = 0.04) only. Redox status improved after all interventions (P < 0.05). No differences were found in TW, PA, dietary intake, and psychological stress between groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RT and SIT protocols with very short "all out" efforts, either performed in isolation, or combined, demonstrated improvement in several physical fitness- and health-related parameters. However, CT was the most efficient exercise intervention with improvement observed in the majority of the parameters.
Authors: Todd Anthony Astorino; Ryan Phillips Allen; Daniel W Roberson; Matt Jurancich; Robert Lewis; Kelsey McCarthy; Emily Trost Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2010-12-04 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Kirsten A Burgomaster; Krista R Howarth; Stuart M Phillips; Mark Rakobowchuk; Maureen J Macdonald; Sean L McGee; Martin J Gibala Journal: J Physiol Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Jéssica Alves Ribeiro; Felipe Barreto Schuch; Kleber F Meneghel Vargas; Paulo T Müller; Daniel Boullosa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Jordana Oliveira; Paulo Gentil; João Pedro Naves; Luiz Fernando Souza Filho; Lucas Silva; Antonio Roberto Zamunér; Claudio Andre de Lira; Ana Rebelo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 4.614