Fernando González-Mohíno1,2, Jordan Santos-Concejero3, Inmaculada Yustres1, José M González-Ravé4. 1. Sport Training Lab., Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Castilla la Mancha, Avenida Carlos III s/n, 45071, Toledo, Spain. 2. Facultad de Lenguas y Educación, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, Spain. 3. Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. 4. Sport Training Lab., Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Castilla la Mancha, Avenida Carlos III s/n, 45071, Toledo, Spain. josemaria.gonzalez@uclm.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oxygen cost of running is largely influenced by endurance training strategies, including interval and continuous training. However, which training method better reduces the oxygen cost remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the scientific literature and performs a meta-analysis to address the effects of different endurance training modalities on the oxygen cost of running. METHODS: A literature search on 3 databases (MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science) was conducted on February 28, 2019. After analysing 8028 resultant articles, studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (a) studies were randomised controlled trials, (b) studies included trained runners without previous injuries (c) interventions lasted at least 6 weeks, with participants allocated to Interval (INT) or Continuous (CON) groups, and (d) oxygen cost was assessed pre- and post-training intervention. Six studies (seven trials) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. This resulted in 295 participants (n = 200 INT; n = 95 CON training method). Standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) between INT and CON conditions and effect sizes were calculated. To assess the potential effects of moderator variables (such as, age, VO2max of participants, number of weeks of intervention) on main outcome (oxygen cost of running), subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: Comparing changes from pre- to post-intervention, oxygen cost improved to a greater extent in CON when compared to INT interventions (0.28 [95% CI 0.01, 0.54], Z = 2.05, p = 0.04, I2 = 30%). Oxygen cost improvements were larger in participants with higher VO2max (≥ 52.3 ml kg-1 min-1) (0.39 [95% CI 0.06, 0.72], Z = 2.34, p = 0.02), and in programs greater or equal to 8 weeks (0.35 [95% CI 0.03, 0.67], Z = 2.13, p = 0.03). When the total volume per week of INT was ≥ 23.2 min, there was a significant improvement favorable to CON (0.34 [95% CI 0.01, 0.61], Z = 2.02, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Continuous training seems, overall, a better strategy than interval training to reduce the oxygen cost in recreational endurance runners. However, oxygen cost reductions are influenced by several variables including the duration of the program, runners' aerobic capacity, the intervals duration and the volume of interval training per week. Practitioners and coaches should construct training programs that include both endurance training methods shown to be effective in reducing the oxygen cost of running.
BACKGROUND:Oxygen cost of running is largely influenced by endurance training strategies, including interval and continuous training. However, which training method better reduces the oxygen cost remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the scientific literature and performs a meta-analysis to address the effects of different endurance training modalities on the oxygen cost of running. METHODS: A literature search on 3 databases (MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science) was conducted on February 28, 2019. After analysing 8028 resultant articles, studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (a) studies were randomised controlled trials, (b) studies included trained runners without previous injuries (c) interventions lasted at least 6 weeks, with participants allocated to Interval (INT) or Continuous (CON) groups, and (d) oxygen cost was assessed pre- and post-training intervention. Six studies (seven trials) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. This resulted in 295 participants (n = 200 INT; n = 95 CON training method). Standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) between INT and CON conditions and effect sizes were calculated. To assess the potential effects of moderator variables (such as, age, VO2max of participants, number of weeks of intervention) on main outcome (oxygen cost of running), subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: Comparing changes from pre- to post-intervention, oxygen cost improved to a greater extent in CON when compared to INT interventions (0.28 [95% CI 0.01, 0.54], Z = 2.05, p = 0.04, I2 = 30%). Oxygen cost improvements were larger in participants with higher VO2max (≥ 52.3 ml kg-1 min-1) (0.39 [95% CI 0.06, 0.72], Z = 2.34, p = 0.02), and in programs greater or equal to 8 weeks (0.35 [95% CI 0.03, 0.67], Z = 2.13, p = 0.03). When the total volume per week of INT was ≥ 23.2 min, there was a significant improvement favorable to CON (0.34 [95% CI 0.01, 0.61], Z = 2.02, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Continuous training seems, overall, a better strategy than interval training to reduce the oxygen cost in recreational endurance runners. However, oxygen cost reductions are influenced by several variables including the duration of the program, runners' aerobic capacity, the intervals duration and the volume of interval training per week. Practitioners and coaches should construct training programs that include both endurance training methods shown to be effective in reducing the oxygen cost of running.
Authors: Fernando González-Mohíno; José M González-Ravé; Daniel Juárez; Francisco A Fernández; Rubén Barragán Castellanos; Robert U Newton Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Gustavo Z Schaun; Stephanie S Pinto; Mariana R Silva; Davi B Dolinski; Cristine L Alberton Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: José Ramón Alvero-Cruz; Elvis A Carnero; Manuel Avelino Giráldez García; Fernando Alacid; Lorena Correas-Gómez; Thomas Rosemann; Pantelis T Nikolaidis; Beat Knechtle Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 3.390