Mark A Faghy1, Peter I Brown2, Nicola M Davis3, J P Mayes4, Tom M Maden-Wilkinson5. 1. Human Science Research Centre, University of Derby, Kedleston Road, Derby, DE22 1GB, UK. M.Faghy@Derby.ac.uk. 2. English Institute of Sport, EIS, Sports Training Village, University of Bath, Bath, UK. 3. Human Science Research Centre, University of Derby, Kedleston Road, Derby, DE22 1GB, UK. 4. School of Allied Health and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, UK. 5. Physical Activity, Public Health and Wellness Research Group, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is little evidence of the ergogenic effect of flow-resistive masks worn during exercise. We compared a flow-resistive face mask (MASK) worn during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) against pressure threshold loading inspiratory muscle training (IMT). METHODS:23 participants (13 males) completed a 5 km time trial and six weeks of HIIT (3 sessions weekly). HIIT (n = 8) consisted of repeated work (2 min) at the speed equivalent to 95% [Formula: see text]O2 peak with equal rest. Repetitions were incremental (six in weeks 1, 2 and 6, eight in weeks 3 and 4 and ten in week 5). Participants were allocated to one of three training groups. MASK (n = 8) wore a flow-resistive mask during all sessions. The IMT group (n = 8) completed 2 × 30 breaths daily at 50% maximum inspiratory pressure (PImax). A control group (CON, n = 7) completed HIIT only. Following HIIT, participants completed two 5 km time trials, the first matched identically to pre-intervention trial (ISO time), and a self-paced effort. RESULTS:Time trial performance was improved in all groups (MASK 3.1 ± 1.7%, IMT, 5.7 ± 1.5% and CON 2.6 ± 1.0%, p < 0.05). IMT improved greater than MASK and CON (p = 0.004). Post intervention, PImax and diaphragm thickness were improved in IMT only (32% and 9.5%, respectively, p = 0.003 and 0.024). CONCLUSION: A flow-resistive mask worn during HIIT provides no benefit to 5 km performance when compared to HIIT only. Supplementing HIIT with IMT improves respiratory muscle strength, morphology and performance greater than HIIT alone.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: There is little evidence of the ergogenic effect of flow-resistive masks worn during exercise. We compared a flow-resistive face mask (MASK) worn during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) against pressure threshold loading inspiratory muscle training (IMT). METHODS: 23 participants (13 males) completed a 5 km time trial and six weeks of HIIT (3 sessions weekly). HIIT (n = 8) consisted of repeated work (2 min) at the speed equivalent to 95% [Formula: see text]O2 peak with equal rest. Repetitions were incremental (six in weeks 1, 2 and 6, eight in weeks 3 and 4 and ten in week 5). Participants were allocated to one of three training groups. MASK (n = 8) wore a flow-resistive mask during all sessions. The IMT group (n = 8) completed 2 × 30 breaths daily at 50% maximum inspiratory pressure (PImax). A control group (CON, n = 7) completed HIIT only. Following HIIT, participants completed two 5 km time trials, the first matched identically to pre-intervention trial (ISO time), and a self-paced effort. RESULTS: Time trial performance was improved in all groups (MASK 3.1 ± 1.7%, IMT, 5.7 ± 1.5% and CON 2.6 ± 1.0%, p < 0.05). IMT improved greater than MASK and CON (p = 0.004). Post intervention, PImax and diaphragm thickness were improved in IMT only (32% and 9.5%, respectively, p = 0.003 and 0.024). CONCLUSION: A flow-resistive mask worn during HIIT provides no benefit to 5 km performance when compared to HIIT only. Supplementing HIIT with IMT improves respiratory muscle strength, morphology and performance greater than HIIT alone.
Authors: John P Porcari; Lauren Probst; Karlei Forrester; Scott Doberstein; Carl Foster; Maria L Cress; Katharina Schmidt Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Andrew R Jagim; Trevor A Dominy; Clayton L Camic; Glenn Wright; Scott Doberstein; Margaret T Jones; Jonathan M Oliver Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.775