Emre Vardarli1, Remzi Satiroglu1, Jacob R Allen1, Ryan Bjellquist-Ledger1, Heath M Burton1, Edward F Coyle2. 1. Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin, One University Station, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. 2. Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin, One University Station, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. coyle@austin.utexas.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interval exercise allows very high-power outputs to be maintained, a key for stimulating training adaptations. The main purpose of this study was to develop a sprint interval protocol that stimulated both anaerobic and aerobic systems while maximizing power output and minimizing fatigue. The secondary goal was to investigate the influence of inter-sprint recovery duration. METHODS: Sixteen (8 females) participants (age: 23.5 ± 3.4 years, peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak): 45.6 ± 9.2 ml kg-1 min-1) took part in this study. The exercise protocol involved 30 bouts of 4 s maximal cycling sprints using an 'Inertial Load Ergometer'. Recovery durations between sprints of 15, 30 and 45 s were studied in three trials. RESULTS: Peak power output (PPO) was maintained while taking 45 and 30 s of recovery, although it was 9% higher (p < 0.05) during 45 vs. 30 s. PPO with 15 s recovery declined 18% (p < 0.05) and then stabilized as did oxygen consumption (72±2% VO2peak) at a level that might reflect the peak rate of ATP-PC resynthesis from oxidative metabolism. The 15-, 30-, and 45 s trials elicited 72, 56, and 49% VO2peak and 86, 80, and 75% of maximal heart rate (all p<0.001). Perceived exertion increased with shorter recovery periods but remained at 12.6-14.7 and never became 'very hard'. CONCLUSION: The present study describes the use of an inertial-load ergometer to accommodate repeated 4 s maximal cycling sprints that elicit 72% VO2peak when the recovery period is 15 s. However, a recovery duration of 15 s was insufficient for the maintenance of power generation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE: NCT04448925, 26 Jun 2020; retrospectively registered to clinicaltrials.gov.
PURPOSE: Interval exercise allows very high-power outputs to be maintained, a key for stimulating training adaptations. The main purpose of this study was to develop a sprint interval protocol that stimulated both anaerobic and aerobic systems while maximizing power output and minimizing fatigue. The secondary goal was to investigate the influence of inter-sprint recovery duration. METHODS: Sixteen (8 females) participants (age: 23.5 ± 3.4 years, peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak): 45.6 ± 9.2 ml kg-1 min-1) took part in this study. The exercise protocol involved 30 bouts of 4 s maximal cycling sprints using an 'Inertial Load Ergometer'. Recovery durations between sprints of 15, 30 and 45 s were studied in three trials. RESULTS: Peak power output (PPO) was maintained while taking 45 and 30 s of recovery, although it was 9% higher (p < 0.05) during 45 vs. 30 s. PPO with 15 s recovery declined 18% (p < 0.05) and then stabilized as did oxygen consumption (72±2% VO2peak) at a level that might reflect the peak rate of ATP-PC resynthesis from oxidative metabolism. The 15-, 30-, and 45 s trials elicited 72, 56, and 49% VO2peak and 86, 80, and 75% of maximal heart rate (all p<0.001). Perceived exertion increased with shorter recovery periods but remained at 12.6-14.7 and never became 'very hard'. CONCLUSION: The present study describes the use of an inertial-load ergometer to accommodate repeated 4 s maximal cycling sprints that elicit 72% VO2peak when the recovery period is 15 s. However, a recovery duration of 15 s was insufficient for the maintenance of power generation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE: NCT04448925, 26 Jun 2020; retrospectively registered to clinicaltrials.gov.
Authors: Mark Glaister; Michael H Stone; Andrew M Stewart; Michael Hughes; Gavin L Moir Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Martin J Gibala; Jonathan P Little; Martin van Essen; Geoffrey P Wilkin; Kirsten A Burgomaster; Adeel Safdar; Sandeep Raha; Mark A Tarnopolsky Journal: J Physiol Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Julian Eigendorf; Marcus May; Jan Friedrich; Stefan Engeli; Norbert Maassen; Gerolf Gros; Joachim D Meissner Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 4.566